What happens when banks and governments are "not getting it" regarding a new technology? Are we winning the crypto wars? Bad laws arise from a lack of understanding and slow down technological innovation. The War on Cash. Designing phones which can be jailbroken; getting around Secure Boot and locked down software & hardware. Using digital signatures to control distribution of software and media; control of our devices. Open-source security. The moment you stop fighting for your liberties and rights, you start losing them.
Transcript
[AUDIENCE] I would like to put the context of that question in light of what you said before. When certain parties are "not quite getting it yet," or even actively working against it in some way, we have already mentioned the banks, but what about the governments? What about the European Union and Parliament? Maybe only 2% of people who will be making...
decisions for the upcoming law even known [something] about this. Most of the people who will be voting know so little about it. What do we have to look forward to? [ANDREAS] Bad law.
When democratic systems make laws about early stage technology, especially when they least understand it, then they will be making bad laws. The best type of technology law you can make is [usually] to stay the hell out of it, until you understand it well, which usually takes twenty to thirty years. Bad law will slow down technology in the countries where bad laws are implemented. [The bad law] will make it impossible for startups and entrepreneurs to create interesting companies.
They may move to incorporate in Singapore, Hong Kong, or some other place that didn't make bad laws. Canada comes to mind now. They will run their business there. Cash exists.
Bitcoin is a luxury here. You have Visa, Mastercard, and cash. You don't really need bitcoin unless you are trading internationally. It is not important yet.
Your government isn't fascist, your corporations are not completely mafiosi, you can handle it. There are a lot of places where that is not the case. If cash is banned or severely restricted, then bitcoin is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. People will go to extreme lengths to protect their wealth and the future of their children.
Extreme lengths include breaking the law, the very least of what people are willing to do... to protect the future of their children. The government will have no power if they are trying to destroy the wealth of the next generation. No one will accept that.
I am an optimist. [Laughter] [AUDIENCE] I could play devil's advocate for a moment, just to see how far I would get as a government. [ANDREAS] Okay, fantastic. Yes, do play devil's advocate.
[AUDIENCE] You are saying that people can run all of these unregulated programs to do "crime"? [ANDREAS] Yes. [AUDIENCE] What if we made sure that our [tech] companies don't allow their software... or computers to interact with it...
[ANDREAS] Every single phone in China is jailbroken. [AUDIENCE] ... if it does not run on a trusted platform? [ANDREAS] Every single phone in here will be jailbroken.
If you can design a phone that can't be jailbroken, then Apple wants to hire you. They haven't yet. [AUDIENCE] It is actually not that hard. [ANDREAS] To design a phone that is not breakable?
Not if you want to keep it useful. [AUDIENCE] We have trusted platform modules. All you need it to do, is check the memory running on the device and see if the programs still match. [ANDREAS] Yes, and there is a reason why Apple doesn't use that technology.
[AUDIENCE] It is being shipped in more and more Intel computers already. It is called Secure Boot. We only need Secure Boot to exclude programs not digitally signed by Microsoft or the government. [ANDREAS] Right, and then you would have a piece-of- shit computer that can only run Microsoft software.
Good luck selling that to anyone. You see, this is the reason why... [AUDIENCE] It is already selling. Secure Boot is doing fine.
[ANDREAS] Because they haven't forced it to only run programs signed by the government or Microsoft. If you create a closed, controlled ecosystem, innovation dies or moves to open platforms. If there are not enough open platforms, then we will make more open platforms. I'm not worried about- [AUDIENCE] You could send [the government] the source code of your program to allow it...
to be blacklisted, in case it [is misused]. [ANDREAS] Or someone could just steal the keys from the manufacturer that is signing. [AUDIENCE] Of course you would have a contingency, if you have a breach of security, and then continue. [ANDREAS] How difficult is it to steal the signing keys from these companies?
It depends how much pressure there is to steal the keys. [AUDIENCE] How hard to steal nuclear codes? [ANDREAS] They keep them on floppy disks, which makes it a lot harder. [Laughter] [AUDIENCE] That is true.
The point being, you are already discouraged from installing unsigned software. If you open an application from the internet, Macbook or Windows computers will ask, "Are you sure?" Your iPhone will refuse unless you have hacked in. [ANDREAS] So you will disguise it as other software. There are thousands of ways to get around restrictions like that.
You must realize that, in countries where they try to apply such controls, they will fail. In countries where they apply controls like that on penalty of death, you could still find... the comedy movie those idiots made about the killing of Kim Jong-un, which was banned in North Korea. You could get that on a USB drive in North Korea, where the penalty for owning or watching it is death.
The penalty for even owning a DVD player is probably life in prison. [AUDIENCE] But it does make a much bigger difference than you are implying. As a regular consumer, if you can no longer own a device that can run free software... [ANDREAS] I would recommend that we strongly resist the erosion of control over our devices, which is something I have been involved in since the late '80s.
[AUDIENCE] The point is, through developing faster and offering more features, the large companies... are able to get nearly everyone on board with their program. [ANDREAS] Okay, this [discussion] calls for an Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) t-shirt. [Laughter] Twenty-five year anniversary.
I have been a member since year one. [AUDIENCE] The advantage of running only secure, closed source code is that there are no more viruses. [ANDREAS] Secure code is not code that is signed. That is a fundamental difference in our appreciation.
To me, code becomes secure when it is exposed to threats all the time and continuously improves. When you put a bottleneck that requires every version of the code to be signed and audited, it actually slows down the exposure to security improvements. As a result, code that is carefully centrally managed will fall further and further behind in innovation. and eventually in security.
That is why every Microsoft product sucks at security. It is a simple truth we see playing out on the internet. [AUDIENCE] It sucks because you will still buy a computer that has faults in it. [ANDREAS] Well, I certainly won't.
[AUDIENCE] You most definitely have. There is no offering at all for a secure computer. [ANDREAS] Yes, the only secure computer that I have is my Bitcoin hardware wallet. [AUDIENCE] The closest [thing to a secure computer] is a $2,000 laptop that only runs a calculator.
[ANDREAS] Yeah. This is a broader conversation about our ability to have control over our computing devices. I think that is extremely important. [AUDIENCE] It is not a limitless power.
This assumption that Bitcoin is definitely secure from whatever fascism will perform in the future, is false. [ANDREAS] Oh, I don't think it is forever secure from fascism. This is a technological arms race. Technology has always been an arms race.
When you stop fighting for your security, your freedom, your liberty, your control, then you start losing them, instantly. This is not a battle being played out between old technology and new technology. The same battle that played out in the industrial setting between fascism or communism and freedom... in the in the 20th century, will now play all over again on the internet.
Both things will be technological. We will see technological fascism and technological liberalism. We will see technological decentralization and all of these new political movements. But it is a mistake to think this is about the technology of the new versus the model of the old.
Two different futures are both playing out on the internet, and you must fight for your right to be free. And to party. [AUDIENCE] The last question would be, do you think that we are winning? [ANDREAS] I think we are winning.
As much as people think that the internet is controlled, it was able to spawn surprises, and one of those surprises was Bitcoin. That is why we are here today. As long as the internet can spawn surprises like Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is able to spawn its own surprises, who knows what else will come out of the internet? We are winning.
I'm very happy and optimistic to be part of this fight. Thank you. [Applause]