Kris Anderson: Julian, dobrodošao. Došli smo do saznanja da je VikiLiks, vaše djelo, u zadnjih nekoliko godina objavio više povjerljivih dokumenata nego ostatak svijetskih medija zajedno. Da li je to zaista moguće ?
Chris Anderson: Julian, welcome. It's been reported that WikiLeaks, your baby, has, in the last few years has released more classified documents than the rest of the world's media combined. Can that possibly be true?
Julian Asanž: Da, da li je to zaista moguće ? To je zabrinjavajuće -- zar ne ? -- da ostatak svjetskih medija radi tako loš posao da mala grupa aktivista je u mogućnosti da objavi više te vrste informacija nego ostatak svijetske štampe zajedno.
Julian Assange: Yeah, can it possibly be true? It's a worry -- isn't it? -- that the rest of the world's media is doing such a bad job that a little group of activists is able to release more of that type of information than the rest of the world press combined.
KA: Kako to funkcioniše ? Kako ljudi objavljuju te dokumente ? I na koji način čuvate njihovu privatnost ?
CA: How does it work? How do people release the documents? And how do you secure their privacy?
JA: Postoje -- onoliko koliko mi možemo reći -- klasični zviždači. A mi posjedujemo više načina dostupnim njima za dostavljanje informacija. Tako što koristimo najusavršenije šifrovanje da prebacimo stvari preko interneta, da sakrijemo tragove, provučemo ih kroz pravne nadležnosti kao Švedska i Belgija da sprovedemo te pravne zaštite. Mi te informacije dobivamo poštom, običnom poštom, šifrovane ili ne, pregledamo ih kao obična novinarska kuća, presložimo -- što je ponekad to nešto što je teško za uraditi, kada govorite o ogromnim bazama informacija -- objavimo to u javnosti i onda se branimo od neizbježnih pravnih i političkih napada.
JA: So these are -- as far as we can tell -- classical whistleblowers, and we have a number of ways for them to get information to us. So we use this state-of-the-art encryption to bounce stuff around the Internet, to hide trails, pass it through legal jurisdictions like Sweden and Belgium to enact those legal protections. We get information in the mail, the regular postal mail, encrypted or not, vet it like a regular news organization, format it -- which is sometimes something that's quite hard to do, when you're talking about giant databases of information -- release it to the public and then defend ourselves against the inevitable legal and political attacks.
KA: Znači vi se trudite da osigurate da su dokumenti legitimni. Ali vi ustvari skoro nikad ne znate pravi identitet izvora informacija.
CA: So you make an effort to ensure the documents are legitimate, but you actually almost never know who the identity of the source is?
JA: To je tačno, da. Vrlo rijetko mi ikad saznamo. I onda kada saznamo u tom trenutku mi uništimo tu informaciju što je prije moguće. ( Telefon zvoni ) Do vraga.
JA: That's right, yeah. Very rarely do we ever know, and if we find out at some stage then we destroy that information as soon as possible. (Phone ring) God damn it.
( Smijeh )
(Laughter)
KA: Ja mislim da to CIA želi znati koja je šifra za TED članstvo.
CA: I think that's the CIA asking what the code is for a TED membership.
( Smijeh )
(Laughter)
Hajmo uzeti za primjer, ustvari. To je nešto što ste objavili prije nekoliko godina. Ako možete prikazati ovaj dokumenat ... Znači ovo je bila priča u Keniji prije nekoliko godina. Možete li reći šta ste to objavili i šta se desilo ?
So let's take [an] example, actually. This is something you leaked a few years ago. If we can have this document up ... So this was a story in Kenya a few years ago. Can you tell us what you leaked and what happened?
JA: To je ustvari Krolski izvještaj. To je bio izvještaj tajne obavještajne službe naručen od strane Kenijske vlade nakon izbora 2004. Prije 2004, Kenijom je upravljao Danijel arap Moi oko 18 godina. On je bio blagi diktator u Keniji. I onda kada je Kibaki došao na vlast -- kroz koaliciju snaga koje su pokušavale da počiste korupciju u Keniji -- naručili su ovaj izvještaj, potrošili su oko dva miliona funti na ovaj i još jedan izvještaj. A onda je vlada to skrivala i iskoristila to kao političku prednost nad Moiem, koji je bio najbogatiji čovjek -- i još uvijek je najbogatiji čovjek -- u Keniji. To je Sveti Gral Kenijskog novinarstva. Otišao sam tamo 2007 godine, i uspjeli smo doći do ovoga pred same izbore -- nacionalne izbore, 28. Decembra. Kada smo objavili taj izvještaj, učinili smo to tri dana nakon što je novi predsjednik, Kibaki, odlučio da se udruži sa čovjekom kojeg je želio da se riješi, Danijelom arap Moiem. Tako je ovaj izvještaj postao kamen oko predsjednikovog vrata.
JA: So this is the Kroll Report. This was a secret intelligence report commissioned by the Kenyan government after its election in 2004. Prior to 2004, Kenya was ruled by Daniel arap Moi for about 18 years. He was a soft dictator of Kenya. And when Kibaki got into power -- through a coalition of forces that were trying to clean up corruption in Kenya -- they commissioned this report, spent about two million pounds on this and an associated report. And then the government sat on it and used it for political leverage on Moi, who was the richest man -- still is the richest man -- in Kenya. It's the Holy Grail of Kenyan journalism. So I went there in 2007, and we managed to get hold of this just prior to the election -- the national election, December 28. When we released that report, we did so three days after the new president, Kibaki, had decided to pal up with the man that he was going to clean out, Daniel arap Moi, so this report then became a dead albatross around President Kibaki's neck.
KA: I -- da skratimo ovu priču -- došlo je do saznanja o izvještaju u Keniji, ne od službenih medija, već neposredno. I po vašem mišljenju, to je promjenilo izbore. JA: Da. To je postala naslovna strana Gardijana i tada je odštampano u svim susjednim zemljama Kenije, u Tanzanijskoj i Južno Afričkoj štampi. A došlo je izvana. I to je, nakon nekoliko dana, učinilo da se Kenijsko novinarstvo osjeća slobodno da priča o tome. A prikazivalo se ravno 20 noći na Kenijskoj Televiziji, što je promjenilo izbore za 10 procenata, prema izvještaju Kenijske obavještajne službe, što je potpuno promjenilo rezultate izbora.
CA: And -- I mean, to cut a long story short -- word of the report leaked into Kenya, not from the official media, but indirectly, and in your opinion, it actually shifted the election. JA: Yeah. So this became front page of the Guardian and was then printed in all the surrounding countries of Kenya, in Tanzanian and South African press. And so it came in from the outside. And that, after a couple of days, made the Kenyan press feel safe to talk about it. And it ran for 20 nights straight on Kenyan TV, shifted the vote by 10 percent, according to a Kenyan intelligence report, which changed the result of the election.
KA: Opa, znači vaše objavljivanje je zaista uveliko promjenilo svijet ?
CA: Wow, so your leak really substantially changed the world?
JA: Da.
JA: Yep.
( Aplauz )
(Applause)
KA: Ovdje -- Mi ćemo da pokazemo kratki isječak iz ovog snimka vazdušnog napada u Bagdadu. Čitav snimak je duži. ali ovo je kratki isječak. Ovo je -- osjetljiv materijal, da vas upozorim.
CA: Here's -- We're going to just show a short clip from this Baghdad airstrike video. The video itself is longer, but here's a short clip. This is -- this is intense material, I should warn you.
Radio: ... samo jebeno, kad ih naciljaš otvori vatru. Vidim vaš element, uh imam oko četiri Humvija, uh tamo pored ... Čisto je. U redu. Pucam. Javite mi kad ih pogodite. Pucajmo. Zapalite ih sviju. Hajde, otvori vatru! ( pucnjava iz oružja ) Nastavite da pucate. Nastavite da pucate. ( pucnjava iz oružja ) Nastavite da pucate. Hotel... Bušmaster 2-6, Bušmaster 2-6, moramo da se pokrenemo, sada! Uredu je, sada smo naciljali svih osam osoba. Da, vidimo dvije ptice ( helikopteri ), i još uvijek pucamo. Prijem. Imam ih. 2 - 6, ovo je 2 - 6, mi smo u pokretu. Ups, izvinjavam se. Šta se dešavalo tamo ? Do vraga, Kajl. U redu, hahaha. Pogodio sam ih.
Radio: ... just fuckin', once you get on 'em just open 'em up. I see your element, uh, got about four Humvees, uh, out along ... You're clear. All right. Firing. Let me know when you've got them. Let's shoot. Light 'em all up. C'mon, fire! (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Keep shoot 'n. (Machine gun fire) Keep shoot 'n. Hotel ... Bushmaster Two-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, we need to move, time now! All right, we just engaged all eight individuals. Yeah, we see two birds [helicopters], and we're still firing. Roger. I got 'em. Two-Six, this is Two-Six, we're mobile. Oops, I'm sorry. What was going on? God damn it, Kyle. All right, hahaha. I hit 'em.
KA: Onda, kakav je bio uticaj toga ?
CA: So, what was the impact of that?
JA: Uticaj na ljude koji su radili na tome bio je ogroman. Mi smo onda poslali dvoje ljudi u Bagdad da detaljnije istraže tu priču. To je samo prvi od tri napada koji se desio u toj sceni.
JA: The impact on the people who worked on it was severe. We ended up sending two people to Baghdad to further research that story. So this is just the first of three attacks that occurred in that scene.
KA: Znači li to da je 11 ljudi poginulo u tom napadu, uključujući dva Rojtersova radnika ?
CA: So, I mean, 11 people died in that attack, right, including two Reuters employees?
JA: Da. Dva Rojtersova radnika, i dva mala dijeteta su bila ranjena. Tamo je ukupno poginulo izmedju 18 i 26 ljudi.
JA: Yeah. Two Reuters employees, two young children were wounded. There were between 18 and 26 people killed all together.
KA: I objavljivanje ovoga je prouzrokovalo ogroman bijes posvuda. Koji je bio ključni faktor svega ovoga što je ustvari prouzrokovalo sav taj bijes, šta vi mislite ?
CA: And releasing this caused widespread outrage. What was the key element of this that actually caused the outrage, do you think?
JA: Neznam, pretpostavljam da ljudi mogu vidjeti ogromno neslaganje u sili. Imate ljude koji opušteno hodaju ulicom, a onda Apač helikopter udaljen jedan kilometar ispaljuje 30-milimetarske rakete po svima -- tražeći bilo kakav izgovor za to -- i ubija ljude koji spašavaju ranjene. I tu su bila upletena dva novinara koji očigledno nisu bili pobunjenici jer to je njihov svakodnevni posao.
JA: I don't know. I guess people can see the gross disparity in force. You have guys walking in a relaxed way down the street, and then an Apache helicopter sitting up at one kilometer firing 30-millimeter cannon shells on everyone -- looking for any excuse to do so -- and killing people rescuing the wounded. And there was two journalists involved that clearly weren't insurgents because that's their full-time job.
KA: Postoji, jedan analitičar Američke obavještajne službe, Bradli Maning, koji je uhapšen. I on je navodno priznao u " chat " sobi da vam je dostavio ovaj snimak, zajedno sa 280 000 povjerljivih telegrama Američke ambasade. Mislim, da li je ?
CA: I mean, there's been this U.S. intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, arrested, and it's alleged that he confessed in a chat room to have leaked this video to you, along with 280,000 classified U.S. embassy cables. I mean, did he?
JA: Pa zapravo, mi smo porekli primanje tih telegrama. On je optužen, prije nekih pet dana, za posjedovanje 150 000 telegrama i objavljivanje 50. Mi smo objavili početkom ove godine telegram iz Američke ambasade u Reykjaviku. Ali to ne mora biti povezano. Ja sam bio poznat posjetilac te ambasade.
JA: We have denied receiving those cables. He has been charged, about five days ago, with obtaining 150,000 cables and releasing 50. Now, we had released, early in the year, a cable from the Reykjavik U.S. embassy, but this is not necessarily connected. I mean, I was a known visitor of that embassy.
KA: Mislim, ako ste primili na hiljade diplomatskih telegrama Američke ambasade...
CA: I mean, if you did receive thousands of U.S. embassy diplomatic cables ...
JA: Mi bismo ih objavili. ( KA: Biste ? )
JA: We would have released them. (CA: You would?)
JA: Da. ( KA: Zašto ? )
JA: Yeah. (CA: Because?)
JA: Zbog toga što takve stvari otkriju pravu istinu recimo, o Arapskim vladama, istinske povrede ljudskih prava u tim vladama. Ako pogledate telegrame koji su otkriveni, to je taj materijal koji se tamo nalazi.
JA: Well, because these sort of things reveal what the true state of, say, Arab governments are like, the true human-rights abuses in those governments. If you look at declassified cables, that's the sort of material that's there.
KA: Hajde da pričamo malo opširnije o tome. Uopšteno, kakva je vaša filozofija ? Zašto je u redu ohrabrivanje objave tajnih informacija ?
CA: So let's talk a little more broadly about this. I mean, in general, what's your philosophy? Why is it right to encourage leaking of secret information?
JA: Pa, postoji pitanje koja vrsta informacija je važna u svijetu, i koja vrsta informacija može donijeti promjenu. A postoji mnogo informacija. Znači informacije za koje organizacije troše ekonomske napore da ih sakriju, su vrlo dobar znak da kada te informacije procure, postoji nada da se napravi nešto dobro. Jer organizacije koje ih poznaju najbolje, a poznaju ih izvana i iznutra, troše trud da ih sakriju. A to je ono što smo vidjeli u praksi. I to je historija novinarstva.
JA: Well, there's a question as to what sort of information is important in the world, what sort of information can achieve reform. And there's a lot of information. So information that organizations are spending economic effort into concealing, that's a really good signal that when the information gets out, there's a hope of it doing some good -- because the organizations that know it best, that know it from the inside out, are spending work to conceal it. And that's what we've found in practice, and that's what the history of journalism is.
KA: Dali postoje rizici s time, bilo za pojedince koji su umiješani u to ili za društvo u cijelini, gdje objavljivanje zapravo može imati nenamjerne posljedice ?
CA: But are there risks with that, either to the individuals concerned or indeed to society at large, where leaking can actually have an unintended consequence?
JA: Mi to nismo primjetili u vezi sa bilo čim što smo objavili. Pošto mi imamo politiku imunizacije štete. Imamo način na koji radimo sa informacijama koje posjeduju neku vrstu ličnih identifikacionih informacija u sebi. Ali postoje legitimne tajne -- znate, vaš zdravstveni karton: to je legitimna tajna. Ali mi se susrećemo sa zviždačima koji nam dolaze a koji su vrlo dobro motivisani.
JA: Not that we have seen with anything we have released. I mean, we have a harm immunization policy. We have a way of dealing with information that has sort of personal -- personally identifying information in it. But there are legitimate secrets -- you know, your records with your doctor; that's a legitimate secret -- but we deal with whistleblowers that are coming forward that are really sort of well-motivated.
KA: Znači oni jesu dobro motivisani. A šta biste rekli, na primjer, roditelju nekoga -- čiji sin služi Američku vojsku, i on vam kaže, " Znate šta, objavili ste nešto za šta je neko imao inicijativu da to objavi. To pokazuje američkog vojnika kako se smije ljudima koji umiru. To daje utisak -- upravo je dalo utisak milionima ljudi u svijetu da su američki vojnici nehumani. Ustvari, oni to nisu. Moj sin nije. Kako se usudjujete ?" Šta biste vi rekli na to ?
CA: So they are well-motivated. And what would you say to, for example, the, you know, the parent of someone whose son is out serving the U.S. military, and he says, "You know what, you've put up something that someone had an incentive to put out. It shows a U.S. soldier laughing at people dying. That gives the impression, has given the impression, to millions of people around the world that U.S. soldiers are inhuman people. Actually, they're not. My son isn't. How dare you?" What would you say to that?
JA: Da, imamo dosta i toga. Ali znajte, ljudi u Bagdadu, ljudi u Iraku, ljudi u Afganistanu -- oni ne trebaju da vide taj snimak: oni to vide svaki dan. Znači to neće promjeniti njihovo mišljenje. To neće promjeniti njihovu percepciju. To je ono što oni vide svaki dan. To će promjeniti percepciju i mišljenje ljudi koji za sve to plaćaju. I tome se mi nadamo.
JA: Yeah, we do get a lot of that. But remember, the people in Baghdad, the people in Iraq, the people in Afghanistan -- they don't need to see the video; they see it every day. So it's not going to change their opinion. It's not going to change their perception. That's what they see every day. It will change the perception and opinion of the people who are paying for it all, and that's our hope.
KA: Znači pronašli ste način da osvijetlite ono što vidite kao vrstu mračnih tajni u kompanijama i vladama. Svijetlo je dobro. Ali da li vi vidite ironiju u činjenici da, da biste osvijetlili s tim svijetlom, sami morate stvoriti tajnovitost vaših izvora ?
CA: So you found a way to shine light into what you see as these sort of dark secrets in companies and in government. Light is good. But do you see any irony in the fact that, in order for you to shine that light, you have to, yourself, create secrecy around your sources?
JA: Ne sasvim. Mi nemamo još uvijek bilo kakve " dizidente" VikiLiksa. Mi nemamo izvore koji se ne slažu s drugim izvorima. Ako bi oni istupili, bila bi to nezgodna situacija za nas. Ali mi po svoj prilici radimo na takav način da se ljudi osjećaju moralno primoranim da nastave našu misiju, a ne da je zafrknu.
JA: Not really. I mean, we don't have any WikiLeaks dissidents yet. We don't have sources who are dissidents on other sources. Should they come forward, that would be a tricky situation for us, but we're presumably acting in such a way that people feel morally compelled to continue our mission, not to screw it up.
KA: Interesuje me, na osnovu svega što smo čuli do sada -- zanima me mišljenje TED publike. Pošto znate, možda postoji par mišljenja o VikiLiks-u i o Julijanu. Znate već, heroj -- narodni heroj -- unosi ovo vazno svijetlo. Opasni smutljivac. Ko misli da je heroj ? Ko misli da je opasni smutljivac ?
CA: I'd actually be interested, just based on what we've heard so far -- I'm curious as to the opinion in the TED audience. You know, there might be a couple of views of WikiLeaks and of Julian. You know, hero -- people's hero -- bringing this important light. Dangerous troublemaker. Who's got the hero view? Who's got the dangerous troublemaker view?
JA: Ma hajde. Mora biti neko.
JA: Oh, come on. There must be some.
KA: To je blaga publika, Julijane, blaga publika. Moramo pokušati bolje. Hajde da im pokažemo drugi primjer. Ovdje je nešto što još niste objavili, ali objavljujete za TED. Mislim to je intrigantna priča koja se upravo desila, tačno ? O čemu se radi ?
CA: It's a soft crowd, Julian, a soft crowd. We have to try better. Let's show them another example. Now here's something that you haven't yet leaked, but I think for TED you are. I mean it's an intriguing story that's just happened, right? What is this?
JA: Ovo je primjer onoga što mi radimo skoro svaki dan. Znači pred kraj prošle godine -- u novembru prošle godine -- desilo se niz eksplozija na bušotinama u Albaniji kao ona u Meksičkom zaljevu, ali ne tako velike. I dobili smo izvještaj -- vrstu inženjerske analize o tome šta se desilo -- koji govori da su pripadnici obezbjedjenja nekih suparničkih naftnih kompanija ustvari parkirali kamione tamo i onda ih digli u zrak. I dio albanske vlade je bio umješan, itd., itd. A inženjerski izvještaj nema nikakvo uzglavlje. Tako da je to bio jako težak dokument za nas. Nismo mogli da ga verifikujemo jer nismo znali ko ga je napisao a znali smo o čemu je. Tako da smo bili skeptični misleći da se to neka suparnička naftna kompanija poigrava sa tim problemom. Pod tim okolnostima, objavili smo to i rekli, " Gledajte, mi smo skeptični u vezi ovoga. Ne znamo, ali šta možemo ? Materijal izgleda dobro, osjećaj je dobar, ali mi jednostavno ne možemo to provjeriti. " A onda smo primili pismo baš ove sedmice od kompanije koja ga je napisala, želeći da otkrije izvor -- ( Smijeh ) u kojem piše, " Hej, mi želimo da otkrijemo izvor. " A mi smo rekli, " O recite nam nešto više. O kakvom dokumentu vi govorite tačno ? Možete li dokazati da vi posjedujete taj dokumenat ? Da li je on stvarno vaš ?" Oni su nam onda poslali ovaj snimak ekrana sa autorom u formatu " Microsoft Word-a " Da. ( Aplauz ) To se dešavalo mnogo puta. To je jedna od naših metoda identifikovanja -- provjeravanja materijala, to što pokušavamo da nagovorimo te ljude da pišu pisma.
JA: So this is a sample of what we do sort of every day. So late last year -- in November last year -- there was a series of well blowouts in Albania, like the well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, but not quite as big. And we got a report -- a sort of engineering analysis into what happened -- saying that, in fact, security guards from some rival, various competing oil firms had, in fact, parked trucks there and blown them up. And part of the Albanian government was in this, etc., etc. And the engineering report had nothing on the top of it, so it was an extremely difficult document for us. We couldn't verify it because we didn't know who wrote it and knew what it was about. So we were kind of skeptical that maybe it was a competing oil firm just sort of playing the issue up. So under that basis, we put it out and said, "Look, we're skeptical about this thing. We don't know, but what can we do? The material looks good, it feels right, but we just can't verify it." And we then got a letter just this week from the company who wrote it, wanting to track down the source -- (Laughter) saying, "Hey, we want to track down the source." And we were like, "Oh, tell us more. What document is it, precisely, you're talking about? Can you show that you had legal authority over that document? Is it really yours?" So they sent us this screen shot with the author in the Microsoft Word ID. Yeah. (Applause) That's happened quite a lot though. This is like one of our methods of identifying, of verifying, what a material is, is to try and get these guys to write letters.
KA: Da. Da li ste imali informacije unutar BP-a ?
CA: Yeah. Have you had information from inside BP?
JA: Da, imamo mnogo, ali mislim, u ovom trenutku, ulažemo velik trud u sakupljanju novčanih sredstava i u izgradnju. Tako da je stepen našeg objavljivanja u zadnjih nekoliko mjeseci sveden na minimum dok mi preuredjujemo naše pozadinske sisteme za izvanredno zanimanje javnosti koje mi imamo. To je problem. Kao svaka početna organizacija koja raste, mi smo oduševljeni našim rastom. A to znači da dobivamo ogomnu količinu informacija od strane zviždača vrlo visokog kalibra, ali nemamo dovoljno ljudi da ustvari procesiramo i pregledamo te informacije.
JA: Yeah, we have a lot, but I mean, at the moment, we are undergoing a sort of serious fundraising and engineering effort. So our publication rate over the past few months has been sort of minimized while we're re-engineering our back systems for the phenomenal public interest that we have. That's a problem. I mean, like any sort of growing startup organization, we are sort of overwhelmed by our growth, and that means we're getting enormous quantity of whistleblower disclosures of a very high caliber but don't have enough people to actually process and vet this information.
KA: Znači to je glavni problem, uglavnom novinari volonteri i/ili finansiranje novinarskih plaća ?
CA: So that's the key bottleneck, basically journalistic volunteers and/or the funding of journalistic salaries?
JA: Da. Tako je, i ljudi kojima vjerujemo. Pa mislim, mi smo organizacija kojoj je teško rasti vrlo brzo zbog vrste materijala sa kojim radimo. Moramo se restruktuirati da bi smo imali ljude koji će raditi sa stvarima najviše državne bezbjednosti, a onda sa slučajevima niže bezbjednosti.
JA: Yep. Yeah, and trusted people. I mean, we're an organization that is hard to grow very quickly because of the sort of material we deal with, so we have to restructure in order to have people who will deal with the highest national security stuff, and then lower security cases.
KA: Pomozite nam da vas bolje upoznamo i kako ste otpočeli ovaj posao. Mislim da sam pročitao da ste kao dijete išli u 37 različitih škola. Da li je to tačno ?
CA: So help us understand a bit about you personally and how you came to do this. And I think I read that as a kid you went to 37 different schools. Can that be right?
JA: Pa dobro, moji roditelji su bili u filmskoj industriji a onda u bijegu od kulta, tako da kombinacija izmedju to dvoje ...
JA: Well, my parents were in the movie business and then on the run from a cult, so the combination between the two ...
( Smijeh )
(Laughter)
KA: Mislim, psiholog bi mogao reći da je to recpat za razvijanje paranoje.
CA: I mean, a psychologist might say that's a recipe for breeding paranoia.
JA: Šta, filmska industrija ?
JA: What, the movie business?
( Smijeh )
(Laughter)
( Aplauz )
(Applause)
KA: Također ste bili -- mislim, bili ste haker u mlađoj životnoj dobi i susreli ste se s vlastima prilično rano. JA: Pa dobro, bio sam novinar. Znate, bio sam vrlo mlad novinar aktivist u ranoj životnoj dobi. Pisao sam časopis, bio osudjivan zbog toga kao tinejdžer. Tako da morate biti oprezni sa hakiranjem. Mislim postoji kao -- postoji metod koji se može upotrijebiti za različite stvari. Nažalost trenutno, najviše je upotrebljavan od strane ruske mafije da bi se kralo sa računa vaših baka Tako da ta fraza nije -- tako lijepa kao što je prije bila.
CA: And you were also -- I mean, you were also a hacker at an early age and ran into the authorities early on. JA: Well, I was a journalist. You know, I was a very young journalist activist at an early age. I wrote a magazine, was prosecuted for it when I was a teenager. So you have to be careful with hacker. I mean there's like -- there's a method that can be deployed for various things. Unfortunately, at the moment, it's mostly deployed by the Russian mafia in order to steal your grandmother's bank accounts. So this phrase is not, not as nice as it used to be.
KA: Da, ja zasigurno ne mislim da vi kradete sa računa bilo čije bake. Ali šta je sa vašim osnovnim vrijednostima ? Možete li nam objasniti koje su to i možda navesti poneki incident iz vašeg života koji je pomogao da ih odredi ?
CA: Yeah, well, I certainly don't think you're stealing anyone's grandmother's bank account, but what about your core values? Can you give us a sense of what they are and maybe some incident in your life that helped determine them?
JA: Nisam siguran u vezi incidenta. Ali osnovne vrijednosti: pa, sposobni, velikodušni ljudi ne stvaraju žrtve: oni njeguju žrtve. A to je nešto što je poteklo od mog oca i nešto od drugih sposobnih, velikodušnih ljudi koji su bili u mome životu.
JA: I'm not sure about the incident. But the core values: well, capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims. And that's something from my father and something from other capable, generous men that have been in my life.
KA: Sposobni, velikodušni ljudi ne stvaraju žrtve: oni njeguju žrtve ?
CA: Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims?
JA: Da. I znate, ja sam ratoborna osoba, tako da nisam pretjerano dobar u njegovanju. Ali na neki način -- Postoji drugi način njegovanja žrtava, a to je hvatanje počinioca krivičnih djela. A to je nešto što je dio mog karaktera veoma dugo.
JA: Yeah. And you know, I'm a combative person, so I'm not actually so big on the nurture, but some way -- there is another way of nurturing victims, which is to police perpetrators of crime. And so that is something that has been in my character for a long time.
KA: Recite nam, na brzinu, u posljednoj minuti, priču: šta se desilo na Islandu ? Ustvari ste objavili nešto tamo, susreli se sa problemom s bankom, a onda je novinarskoj agenciji tamo zabranjeno da objave tu priču. Umjesto toga, oni su objavili vašu stranu priče. To vas je učinilo važnom osobom na Islandu. Šta se zatim desilo ?
CA: So just tell us, very quickly in the last minute, the story: what happened in Iceland? You basically published something there, ran into trouble with a bank, then the news service there was injuncted from running the story. Instead, they publicized your side. That made you very high-profile in Iceland. What happened next?
JA: Da, to je velik slučaj, znate. Island je prošao kroz finansijsku krizu. Bio je to najjači udarac na neku zemlju u svijetu. Njihov bankarski sektor je bio 10 puta BDP-a veći od ostatka ekonomije. U svakom slučaju, objavili smo taj izvještaj u julu prošle godine. Državna televizija našla se pod zabranom emitovanja pet minuta prije samog emitovanja. Kao iz filma, zabrana se našla na novinarskom stolu, i voditelj je rekao, " Ovo se nikad prije nije desilo. Šta da radimo ?" Stoga smo prikazivali samo internet-stranicu, čitavo vrijeme, kao pokriće. I postali smo vrlo poznati na Islandu, otišli smo tamo i govorili o ovom problemu. Pojavio se osjećaj u zajednici da se to nikad ne smije ponoviti. Kao rezultat, kroz rad sa nekim islandskim političarima i nekim drugim međunarodnim pravnim stručnjacima, došli smo do nekog novog paketa propisa za Island da bi na neki način postalo spoljašnje utočište za slobodno novinarstvo, sa najjačom zaštitom novinara u svijetu, sa novom Nobelovom nagradom za slobodu govora. Island je nordijska zemlja pa je poput Norveške, u stanju da to unese u sistem. Baš prije mjesec dana, ovo je prošlo jednoglasno od strane islandskog parlamenta.
JA: Yeah, this is a great case, you know. Iceland went through this financial crisis. It was the hardest hit of any country in the world. Its banking sector was 10 times the GDP of the rest of the economy. Anyway, so we release this report in July last year. And the national TV station was injuncted five minutes before it went on air, like out of a movie: injunction landed on the news desk, and the news reader was like, "This has never happened before. What do we do?" Well, we just show the website instead, for all that time, as a filler, and we became very famous in Iceland, went to Iceland and spoke about this issue. And there was a feeling in the community that that should never happen again, and as a result, working with Icelandic politicians and some other international legal experts, we put together a new sort of package of legislation for Iceland to sort of become an offshore haven for the free press, with the strongest journalistic protections in the world, with a new Nobel Prize for freedom of speech. Iceland's a Nordic country, so, like Norway, it's able to tap into the system. And just a month ago, this was passed by the Icelandic parliament unanimously.
KA: Opa.
CA: Wow.
( Aplauz )
(Applause)
Zadnje pitanje za vas, Julijan. Kada razmišljate o budućnosti, da li mislite da će vjerovatno Veliki Brat imati više kontrole, više tajnovitosti, ili mi koji gledamo Velikog Brata, ili će se sve to odigrati na bilo koji način ?
Last question, Julian. When you think of the future then, do you think it's more likely to be Big Brother exerting more control, more secrecy, or us watching Big Brother, or it's just all to be played for either way?
JA: Nisam baš siguran u kojem pravcu to ide. Mislim, postoje ogromni pritisci da se izjednače propisi slobode govora i propisi o transparentnosti širom svijeta -- unutar Evropske Unije, između Kine i SAD-a. Kojim putem će to krenuti ? Teško je predvidjeti. Zato je vrlo interesantno biti u ovom vremenu. Jer uz samo manji napor mozemo usmjeriti tok na bilo koju stranu.
JA: I'm not sure which way it's going to go. I mean, there's enormous pressures to harmonize freedom of speech legislation and transparency legislation around the world -- within the E.U., between China and the United States. Which way is it going to go? It's hard to see. That's why it's a very interesting time to be in -- because with just a little bit of effort, we can shift it one way or the other.
KA: Pa mislim, izgleda kao da odražavam mišljenje publike kad kažem, Julijane, budite oprezni i neka je snaga na vašoj strani.
CA: Well, it looks like I'm reflecting the audience's opinion to say, Julian, be careful, and all power to you.
JA: Hvala vam, Kris. ( KA: Hvala vama.)
JA: Thank you, Chris. (CA: Thank you.)
( Aplauz )
(Applause)