[Music]
i'm an anarchist primarily a hacker and
reverse engineer
and i run an e-waste reverse engineering
laboratory called onbinary where we
repurpose
e-waste
i'll start with a little this will be
this this talk will not have any slides
it'll mainly deal with
our thinking about electronic waste
and
some of the philosophy behind that
i thought it was necessary to to talk
about this subject because we tend to uh
hacker conferences talk about all the
technical minutiae
and details that go into hacking devices
and reverse engineering devices but not
enough about the context so i felt it
would be nice to just have a talk about
the context in our thinking
i'll start with a little personal
history as this will become relevant to
the subject we will discuss
later
about 22 years ago
i was an undergraduate interdisciplinary
arts student
and a young hacker in the city of the
hague
with an extremely slim budget
to make ends meet in the first years of
my studies
my neighbor
in my student residence and i both
obsessed with hacking hardware for music
would go out late in the evening on
thursday nights with a shopping cart
looking for discarded electronics on the
sidewalks in the hague city center
you see in the year 2000
e-waste recycling wasn't strongly
regulated
and people just threw out their beige
pcs out on the street when they were
done with them
we would also find lots of old stereo
amplifiers and old dusty crt tvs
to our look just a few hundred meters
from our student residence we had an
electronics hardware supplier student
brand
and a long street filled with
second-hand electronics stores
we would pick up any device we would
find on the sidewalk
bring them back to our student residence
open them up and remove any component we
could harvest for our projects and
repair the rest
the repair devices we would sell to
these second-hand shop owners
now i would create diy electronic music
instruments and play them live in
squatted buildings all over the city
in a time when trash was readily
available to anyone who wanted to do
something interesting with it
so were abandoned decaying buildings to
anyone who wanted to make them available
for use by the community
the anarchists in the hague around the
year 2000s were prolific in their
attempts to bring life and freedom
to an otherwise dull and bureaucratic
city
they had an old squatted anarchist
stronghold in the middle of the hague
called the blau onslach or the blue
fungus in english
dozens of anarchists lived there
published magazines and organized
protests
they had a theater space called the
white space where i would perform my
first pieces of harsh noise music
a folks goku or a social kitchen called
the femor
or the murdered butcher
and a large industrial space called the
pirate bar or the pirate bar in the
harbor of schreifeningen
these spaces would be entirely run by
volunteers
much like this camp but all year round
and that and they also lived inside and
around these buildings and honestly the
only ones who would genuinely be
welcoming to a young black kid with a
natural propensity to hack
a lot has changed
in the past 20 years
i mean in the early 2000s i used to be
surrounded and harassed by skinhead
nazis
20 years later these p these types make
memes and wear suits and run white
winged populist parties in the
government
we used to be able to find and create
new and free and public spaces
now squatting has been made illegal
and abandoned buildings are bought by
the rich for real estate speculation
and remain empty and unused
and lastly where we used to be able to
physically see electronic trash in the
street to repair it ourselves
now we have recycling parks where the
sheer volume of electronic trash is
hidden from the public
and shipped to low income countries in
the global south
i kind of covered a lot of ground here
so i need to shortly explain
why i mention all of these different
things
from personal anecdotes to changes in
the political climate
it's because they're all not that
different
i'm trying to highlight subtle changes
in the context in which we live and work
and play
highlighting a sense of freedom
and independence from government and
corporate control
that we took for granted
and has slowly disappeared
i feel this disappearance is the cause
of a lot of our current social and
environmental problems
also with electronic waste
for instance
hiding the electronic waste we produce
behind recycling and environmental waste
managed waste management strategies
helps the tech industry greenwash their
products and sell more of it
it allows them to continue to project a
mythical future scenario
where these products will be
environmentally ethical make our lives
easier
more comfortable
and more connected
i'm sure we here are all aware that this
is obviously a marketing ploy conjured
up by tech companies that sell devices
and that we don't genuinely believe in
the science fiction sold to us by
advertising companies
somehow i do feel that the underlying
ideological message
is implicitly accepted by most of us
the underlying ideological message being
that the technology we use
sanitized by the visual absence of waste
is somehow inherently rational ethical
and clean
that is created in some kind of sterile
vacuum unaffected by the randomness and
unpredictability of life
i get the impression that because it
portrays itself as the application of
the scientific research that preceded it
or the product as a reflection of our
highest scientific achievements
that we are prompted to trust it
implicitly
this means we automatically gloss over
many of the real intentions that
underlie the introduction of these
products to the general populace and
adopt a strong tendency to think about
electronics within a reductionist narrow
frame of reference
without full awareness of the very real
broad environmental and social context
in which it operates again
taking a pluralistic contextual
perspective is important to understand
the mess we are in
we see this narrow frame of reference
when thinking about electronics
demonstrate a character that can only be
described as a dominant and perverse
form of technofeticism
a preoccupation with the benefits of
technological novelty
the obsession with technological
aesthetics and the ideal of technology
as a catalyst for human prosperity
some subjects that pass by the average
person's news feed on a weekly basis are
the elaborate transhumanist fantasies
exploring the future convergence of
humanity and artificial intelligence i'm
sure you've read it
how we can
clear the ocean of microplastics using
advanced robotics or the promise of
sustainable biomimetic architecture and
urbanism
even billionaires selling the miracles
private space flight in the future
colonization of mars and so on
on the other hand there are obviously
also sounds of distrust and alarm
people who rightfully so address
problematic developments in technology
be it about the dystopian amount of
corporate and government surveillance we
are increasingly subjected to
and the rapid disappearance of civil
liberties that follow
not to mention news about arms
manufacturers in the west's
military-industrial complex that incite
forever wars in order to in order to
maintain a lucrative market for
high-tech weaponry
i mean although it is good uh that we
hear news that is contrary to the
marketing spin manufacturers use to sell
their devices
and it is great that we as hackers
question and interrogate every new
technology that emerges
the underlying implicit consumption and
trust in technology that is supposed to
work in a neutral and unbiased way is
surprisingly still intact
what i feel remains in both attitudes
is that the progression of technological
innovation is somehow inevitable
you could almost say it's like a force
of nature
and that progress in the human condition
is inextricably linked to the rapid
forward march of technological
innovation
the aforementioned biomimeticism in
architecture and design is a great
example of that
to my estimation we appear to think that
by creating biomorphic buildings that
imitate geometric structures we find in
nature
we create technologies that are
harmonious with it
allowing us to avert the growing
problems of global warming and that we
can somehow
reintegrate ourselves within our
ecosystem in ways that doesn't harm the
environment
this shows that all we can do is amend
technological developments we find
problematic
changing the bits we don't like
and keep the rest of the ideology intact
duct taping the problems we face by
iteratively designing new products that
solve problems the previous one has
created
while the status quo is unshakably
maintained
now it feels as if certain
fundamental questions regarding
technology and our relationship to it
are not being asked in earnest
and i wonder why
is it because we the public don't
fully understand the intricacies that go
into how technological technological
products are made
um is it that we think
this
this way because it fits our economics
and the means by which we sustain
ourselves and our families financially
or does the problem go farther
is the real problem inherently
ideological
that the ways in which we think about
ourselves and the environment is stuck
permanently in intermixed with
technology
perhaps in this sense europe a place
where we
somewhat arrogantly portray ourselves as
a post-ideological society
liberated from the backward and
restrictive confines of dogmatic
religion
is still
deeply ideological
maybe we have simply replaced religious
ideology
with an ideology that favors scientism
and techno-fetishism
that the disastrous outcomes in the
forward march of technological
advancement
are not accidental
but the modus operandi of our society
like i mentioned earlier
electronic waste is an interesting
subject
because its very existence
immediately provides a counterweight to
the dominant ideological narrative
and defies reductionist viewpoints
the problem is inherently pluralistic
if technology advances if it is as they
say
progress
why do so many of it regress
ending up broken and dead in landfills
why do the devices which only a few
years ago were heralded as the
harbingers of the future
now lay idle in a pile
leaking battery fluid into the soil
in the hope of learning more about this
subject i visited several conferences
and on electronic waste
and um the most bizarre aspect of
visiting these events is that next to
endless
ineffective discussions about
environmental policy
our techno fetishism and capitalistic
obsession with the commodification of
our problems
quickly takes over and yet again
produces a whole range of unnecessary
products and solutions
the term circular economy quote unquote
was also thrown around a lot
in short it is the idea that you can use
waste as a resource for other products
and so close the loop from production to
disposal
i find using this term to again be a
misleading
biomimetic fantasy
as the problems we face aren't just
economic in nature
as i mentioned earlier
the context in which the problem
situates itself is broad
and pluralistic
the objective should not be to extract
economic value from objects and
materials we consider to be waste
but to reimagine
what we consider waste to be
there's not a single magical competitive
business strategy that is going to work
in time and at scale
that will outperform solving this crisis
in an open unilateral uncompetitive way
our capitalistic economy is the cause of
the problem
not the solution
short analogy
expecting capitalism to solve our
environmental problems is like lying in
a hospital bed
dying from a terminal illness
and expecting the disease to cure you
one of the more recent e-waste
conferences i visited had a trade floor
on the ground floor of the event
half of the trade floor was filled with
companies that owned smelting facilities
or developed state-of-the-art circuit
board shredding machines
there was a lot of talk about artificial
intelligence and cloud-based inventory
solutions for processing waste
but very little talk about the causes
and nature of electronic waste
and the different conceptual ways in
which we can address this massive
problem to begin with
again our current capitalistic economy
is not a rational objective and neutral
exchange of good goods and services
it is an ideological framework
a value system governed by belief
rituals and superstition
it is like an impenetrable monolith that
determines how we think and act
we think we are dealing with a problem
that is material and pragmatic which
requires a solution that should shift
how we extract and exchange monetary
value in relation to waste
but
nothing could be farther from the truth
it is time we should come to understand
what the nature of electronic waste is
um conceptually talking about the nature
of electronic waste is philosophically
an ontological question
ontology deals with the nature of being
and perhaps by trying to answer the
question of what electronic waste
actually is
by initiating that process of
investigation
we can find ways to look at the problem
in a different way
we can start anywhere so let's start at
the production of devices um if we start
at the absolute beginning
and i will not go into much detail here
industrial metals are refined from mind
or an aggregation of one or more
minerals
the destructive activity of establishing
a mining site once a habit of habitat
for local wildlife
part of a balanced ecosystem
and the activity of extracting the
components of the ore that have utility
in the production process
already unleashes tailings that may
contain arsenic which is a potent poison
barite cadmium
calcite lead which causes widespread
neurological damage and dramatically
impedes on the cognitive development of
children
fluorite more poisonous than lead
manganese sulfur and zinc
and i believe the harm of radioactive
materials need no further introduction
although the progress uh the process of
creating a device uh causes much more
harm to the environment further down the
line
than just the tailings that are released
in the environment such as the
tremendous amount of water that is used
in the semiconductor industry for
instance
we can already notice that irreparable
harm is immediately done at the start of
production
before a device is even brought into
existence
that something had to cease to exist
often permanently
in order for the device to come into
being
with this knowledge
we arrive at an ontological axiom
that can help us understand what e-waste
is
it is the understanding that everything
that exists is in existence by virtue of
its existence
the entire reason for being is existence
itself
what automatically follows is that
when everything in existence by virtue
of itself
is in existence by virtue of itself
any other thing that is not an intrinsic
property of that thing
cannot own or lane claim to it
therefore nobody can own anything
no land
no
especially no person
private property is not theft
private property does not exist
again
things can relate to one another
even demonstrate an interdependence
but they cannot ontologically belong to
each other
the things we produce with our hands are
no different
our uncanny ability to invent and bring
things into the world
has not yet taught us what it
ontologically means for something to
exist
this ignorance ignorance results in the
situation that devices the devices we
create by the very ways in which we
produce them
permanently and destructively infringe
on the existence of other things
by claiming ownership of their existence
this process
which is kind of like an avalanche in a
snowstorm
is continued after people have thrown
their devices away
uh common causes for throwing devices
away are blatant over consumption
a short lifespan of cheap electronic
devices
to deliberate and planned obsolescence
the inability to repair devices
abandon software support
end-of-life status of devices
the destruction of unsold products now
we know amazon is guilty of doing this
frequently
and the reckless dumping of e-waste
now to shortly give an overview of what
happens after devices are discarded
the global e-waste statistics
partnership or the gesp
recently released a document called the
global trans-boundary e-waste e-waste
flows monitor 2022. it's kind of a long
title
which aims to shed some light on the
global flow and processing of e-waste
in that document
we find that in 2019
we produced about 7.3 kilograms of
electronic waste per capita
this sums up to 53.6 million tons of
e-waste
this is expected to rise to a staggering
74.7
million tons of e-waste in in 2030
and 110 million tons by 2050. i mean
that's ridiculous
this is expected to uh
to go on
as shocking as this projection might be
uh the most surprising figure i found is
that in 2019
only 17 percent 17 percent or 9.3
million tons of it was managed in a way
that was environmentally sound
this means that 83 percent
or 44.3 million tons of global e-waste
literally fell off our radar
how is that possible
the majority is like mixed up with other
waste streams and that ends up in poor
countries
where they are traded
burned
dissolved in open acid pools
and dumped in landfills
endangering the health of people that
the process that processes waste and
ultimately the environment at large
and there are areas in ghana
that
is currently called the electronics
graveyard
that is so far that's so large you see
electronic waste onto the horizon
the sky is filled with smoke
and there are people in the informal
sector
covered in dirt
trying to get something out of it they
can use to feed their families
right
and this is this is also common in china
we do this
we buy all these iphones we buy all
these devices once we're done with them
we discard them yes great
right we put them in some kind of a
recycling facility
shipped off to africa
right but at least we can pretend that
we're solving the problem
so after the short trajectory from the
very beginning
to the end of the electronic device
we can argue that in the creation and
the supposed death of a device
it is only a thing that exists
an isolated object unto itself
for a very short time
so it's only a thing to us at least for
a very very short time that's when we
use it right that's when it's a thing
that's when it has its own ontological
identity
but that's the shortest part of its life
and if we want to acknowledge its full
life it becomes something entirely
different
a more apt description is that each
device is unique
and is a unique catastrophic event
irreducible to the sum of its parts
an irreversible displacement of matter
and continued impediment to the
environment
once we have unleashed these events into
the world the environment is
irreversibly damaged
in this light
adopting an ontologically nominalist
perspective could be beneficial
ontological nominalism which is a
philosophy about ontology that lost
in the middle ages
it asserts that you cannot refer to
things by their universal properties
but only by their particularities
for example
to not consider a broken iphone by its
universal ontological properties
right an iphone
but as a particular event in time
with a unique history that ultimately
got its screen cracked
this brings the broader non-reductionist
pluralistic context back into the
acknowledgement of the problem
the ontological antithesis of this
perspective is
the one the public in general currently
holds
which is ontologically realistic
ontological realists so not nominalists
would argue that the devices like the
broken iphone
are within the same
category
a pile of computers
a pile of phones
and this is reflected in policy
e-waste is considered an abstract
category
that might contain sub-categories
but an abstract category unto itself
this means that by virtue of its
ontological status
the only way to address it
is by its scale
if you address a problem through its
universals
you will need a solution that addresses
the same universals
if all you see is a pile
you will treat it as such
this is why we need to return to
ontological nominalism
when discussing e-waste
if each device is
ontologically unique
with its own particularities and
character
what these devices are and what they
could become
is all of a sudden opened up again
the former linear and destructive
trajectory of these devices i.e ending
up in ghana
and set aflame
um
suddenly branch into a multitude of
paths and possibilities
now i'm not saying
that this solves the e-waste problem
directly
right
once a device like i said earlier comes
into existence that's it
that's it
there's no way we can go back
right
but what could happen to these devices
is still open
what we could do with these devices
still has a lot of possibilities
so
what was once considered dead and
harmful
is
resurrected
uh resurrected and given a new life
much of what the anarchist did in the
hague 20 years ago
it gives life and freedom
to an otherwise harmful and bureaucratic
process
now i'm sure you're guessing right now
because i don't have any slides where
i'm going with this
guess which activities are the most
adept
at taking an ontologically anomalous
perspective towards devices
can anybody name
an activity what are we here to do
hack right
and reverse engineering
um
now commonly reverse engineering is
explained as the reverse
of engineering as it were
where instead of starting at
requirements and ending up with a design
you start with the products and you end
up with information of the design
now there's something
unique to this process it's not simply
reversible
um
the inverse or opposite of
engineering um
relies on an entirely different set of
thought processes
right let me go back to philosophy for
this in my personal experience reverse
engineering is inherently a heuristic
thought process which is learning by
doing what i mean by this is that i
experience it as an approach to a
problem solving that is often
inefficient imprecise and creative
if you happen to have a broad frame of
reference spanning diverse fields of
knowledge we are all
generalists
one way or another
this heuristic thought process allows
you to string together
seemingly unrelated things
to help comprehend
whatever is your object of scrutiny
and uncover the rich potentialities that
hide within
you know this is kind of a
convoluted way of saying um
you know it's not a bug it's a feature
now ontological nominalism towards
e-waste and discovering potentialities
might seem like something that doesn't
directly address the magnitude of the
problems we face
you know i did admit that i i'm not here
with any solutions i'm just here to
address the way of thinking
that will help us
get towards solutions
and that's a step i'm not sure we've
taken yet
um
but we are many
also right um
apologetically hacking and reverse
engineering devices
immediately removes the biggest cause of
all the problems i just described
the concept of private property
and the governments and corporations
that through it
maintain a stranglehold on the
environment
so
squat their empty buildings
do it again
hack their devices
go dumpster diving and create new
possibilities
the road we on leads to nowhere
and let's imagine new ones instead
thanks
[Applause]
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]
thank you very much um
is it already
yes
working maybe we will see
thank you i don't know
yeah you oh we hear something maybe
maybe not okay yeah perfect okay so we
have some time left for our questions so
if anyone has any please line up at the
microphones please be
close to the microphone so that we can
hear you properly properly and please be
quite concise in your question
so microphone in the middle front please
start
yes uh
i think
that the best way
to reduce electronic waste is to buy
less devices
what do you think i think
we should not buy any device that we
can't use for at least 15 years
so definitely overproduction and
overconsumption is indeed
a problem
if we are less enticed
to buy new products because we find a
myriad of ways
to find new uses for existing products
the incentive is reduced now obviously
that's not something that happens magic
automatically
but indeed i agree with you
by
reverse engineering devices hacking
devices repurposing devices finding new
uses for devices
de-incentivizes
buying new devices
and hopefully
can reduce some of the over consumption
we face
yeah next question again front
microphone yeah um
do you believe there's any possible
possibility we can return a society to a
culture of tool use where we can
actually sustain the way we use and make
tools for centuries
like
blacksmithing in the old days was
actually
sustained for several thousand years at
a time and it was fairly in line with
our natural development we're a lot less
spread out but nowadays do you think
it's possible with technology at all or
are we on irreversible path
um i have to be
a bit pessimistic here i think we are
partly on irreversible path simply
because there's so many tons of waste
you already
deal with
but i do think
that
the resurgence of
anarchism as a social philosophy
should
enable us to think of new ways
to deal with this problem
definitely the state and corporations
should have not only less power but
should be dissolved so
i think we actively should
try and find new ways to live together
and new way
to produce
the tools we need to live
are there any questions from the
internet do we know that
does anyone have any
no
yes no
good then next question from the front
microphone please
and maybe let another person just line
up behind
i'm a huge fan of civil disobedience he
already mentioned one namely squatting
but maybe like and i think like in
modern anarchism there's a problem of
like
a very narrow scope of tactics to use
but why not for example go to an apple
store and occupy it so that they don't
cannot sell their devices
yes
yeah what do you think of those kind of
things
any form of direct action is very
welcome so
uh i'll be there to join you
okay next question please
uh well uh you you you say anarchism uh
can solve problems
in essence anarchism
means no laws
no laws at all
the only law is that there is no law but
i think there's it's necessary to have
regulations
to not export this electronic waste to
to countries
which are poor and and can't
can't defend themselves so i think we
should
make this this electronic waste visible
here
um anarchism does not mean that there
are no laws
anarchism means there is no
um
overarching hierarchical
um
dominating force that determines how you
think or act
anarchism means mutual aid
anarchism means solving problems
together
i think the event we are currently in is
actually a great example of an
anarchistic practice
everybody is volunteering and look at
how wonderful this event is
next question oh you can okay
and if you also want to help feel free
to sign up but next question
please yes
do you believe that
the way the way
all tools all equipment all devices are
manufactured nowadays
there's yeah they're they're never
designed to be taken apart again they're
never designed to be repaired but
culturally in the past there has been
more of a tendency like if you look at
the 40s 50s
suddenly i love test gear but
every part of society you could to some
large extent
actually repair things and
most materials were actually available
to remake afterwards
you feel there was like a hegemonic
change where suddenly
some large corporations got together
took over and made the whole like
do you feel there was a shift at some
point where it became worse
philosophically or has it always been
bad
um
capitalism has always been bad
um
[Music]
i think
i can only go by personal experience
i mean i'm 41 years old and for me
what the biggest difference was
difference uh was was the reagan
thatcher era of privatization and
globalization
that made things dramatically worse
so i would like kind of pinpoint that
time
as being the start of
um
an an
increase of problems we face
okay
then next question please
very much of the hardware that we throw
away is thrown away because we can't
change the software and reverse
engineering can help with that but it's
incredibly laborious
i am really surprised that governments
both know this problem of dumping waste
everywhere
and make no laws to say if you stop
supporting a device
you have to disclose everything needed
to build your own software on this
device
everything that you had available all
the designs all the schematics all the
whatever all that and if i were to
uh provoke an action that's the
direction i would move it towards sorry
what did you just say i didn't hear you
i
if i were to set up an action i wouldn't
focus on an individual apple store even
though that does catch the news
definitely but i would also go for this
to have laws in stated that say you are
the owner of the device also after the
the
the brand stops supporting it then you
have the right to have the code you have
the right for all the design schemata
yeah
yes
i find any means by which you obtain
information of devices absolutely
legitimate
uh so there's no bounds in that
um
and
i do not think we need to ask for
permission
we don't need permission
in essence everything is public property
not common
property
and
if if these corporations
claim ownership of intellectual property
you can simply ignore it
okay are there any more questions
someone wanting to ask something by a
salon stage
yes you okay back microphone please
i um i think the previous person was
trying to
say that
you don't need permission but you need
to go much further those companies need
to help us with all possible
documentations sdks in order to bring
the hardware that they've sold us into
whichever future life that it could have
so what you say is ignore their
uh counter pressure
and what he's saying is
take it ten steps further obligate them
to help you to build your own stuff
well
companies are not
inanimate objects they are occupied by
people
people that work there
and
um these people are perfectly uh capable
of sharing information with the public
they should simply be incentivized to do
so
right
the
corporations are not entities they are
not
impenetrable
they are occupied by people people like
you and me
and
what is required is that people
understand
the importance of this issue so they
take matters in their own hands
that's it that's all we need to do
yes you may answer
i think
then you're
too passive
because that's passive yeah yes that is
passive
you know what how does that pass if i if
i ask
somebody at apple say hey could you give
me the schematics please let's be
friends
how is that passive
if i go if i go to the protectors of
private ownership the government
and i said would you could you please
ask them to give me your
to give me their schematics what do you
think they're gonna say they're there to
protect the corporations
okay true if you you that's not that's
asking for your point you say that
if we if we don't get the government to
do the plan that i presented or that
actually the other we don't need the
government but it would be so much
better if we turn the government in such
a way that they actually start helping
us
now that's gonna take ages i agree
this is gonna be a horrible fight but
that should be the long-term aim
how to get there that's the difficulty
i think that's i think personally i find
your perspective to be too complacent
you are expecting people that represent
themselves as protectors of the public
which they are not
to help you they will not
there are
decades of environmental movements and
and activities
that that environmental movements have
done
in the hope to change policy what has
that brought us
right we just had a heat wave
australia is on fire what
how much lobbying do you want to do
like
okay so um and you have a question yes
next question please and from microphone
well i guess it's more of like a
discussion by now but on tactics and
strategies like and the tactic is
occupying or well i'm not saying you
should petition anything you should
occupy them and demand whatever we want
to demand like i think a good start is
as other said
open source hardware
open source software et cetera
maybe in the overlarging ideological
framework i think there are for example
anarchists in argentina who say you need
to expand the floor of the cage the
government is a cage but you need to
expand the floor of it before you're
able to fight the big monsters the
corporations
so
we do need some in in between steps i
would say and i think i agree on for
example making like
everything like a common commonly
licensed
uh
yeah and then you can think of tactics
around it but yeah i would say it's it's
not enough to only hack it's you have to
also force
force the the government and the
corporations force them by
by yeah by
well out tactics wealth out our tactics
that that you get what you want yeah i
think that is inherently an
unanarchistic way of dealing with the
issue
um the the the um the
the way to you know there are no
barriers all of these barriers are
simply cognitive right
there the the the government and
corporations have no
legitimacy
their legitimacy is upheld by our belief
that they should exist
right that is the problem
simply
acting as if you're free which is what
direct action is
um you achieve a lot more goals
than by acknowledging their existence
and trying to move along the paths
they've laid out for you
you are already free
all you need to do is act
as this is probably more of a discussion
than a answer question but thanks for
your question maybe you could take it
outside after the talk if that's all
right for you perhaps i don't i don't
think our points of view collides but
thanks yeah
thanks for asking the question
and are there any more questions
yes feel free to use the microphone in
the front
so would you call right to repair an
annika's movement or did it start off as
one and became more of a
we get the government to change the
rules sort of movement because in a lot
of ways right to repair did start out
that way because it was just people
forcibly getting the schematics through
their friends and things and now it's
more of a political movement that is on
the public stage for everyone to see so
what do you think about writer repair
um about so about uh
12 years ago or so i was part of
a
hacker group
in amsterdam
and we used to have um we used to
receive stockpiles of hardware
from people that used to work at
companies uh on hardware companies and
telecommunications companies
and we would
reflash all of those devices repair them
and just give them away to everybody who
needed them
so indeed like right to repair sounds
like it started in that environment
right
i do currently feel that the excessive
lobbying and asking for permission is
antithetical to its to its origins
so i agree there yeah
okay
i think that's it so please give an last
round of applause for him
thank you very much
[Music]