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?
Chris Anderson: Ongi etorri, Julian. Jakin izan dugu Wikileaks-ek, zure haurrak, azken urte gutxitan argitaratu dituela dokumentu ezkutu gehiago munduko beste komunikabide guziek batera baino. Posible izan al daiteke ?
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.
Julian Assange: Bai, posible izan al daiteke ? Kezkagarria, ez da? --munduko beste komunikabide guziak bere lanean hain gaizki aritzea eta ekintzaile talde txiki bat gai izatea gehiago argitaratzeko horrelako informazioa munduko gainantzeko prensa guzia batera baino.
CA: How does it work? How do people release the documents? And how do you secure their privacy?
CA: Nola funtzioantzen du ? Jendeak nola argitaratzen ditu dokumentuak ? Eta nola gordetzen duzue bere pribatasuna ?
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.
JA: Hauek -- esan dezakeguna da -- informatzaile klasikoak direla. Eta bide desberdinak ditugu beraiek informazioa helarazi diezaguten. Goi mailako enkriptazioa erabiltzen dugu informazioa batetik bestera helarazteko, arrastoak ezkutatzeko, jurisdikzio legaletatik zehar aritzeko, Suezia edo Belgika bezala, babes legal hori lortzeko. Informazioa postaz jasotzen dugu, ohiko postaz, enkriptatua ala ez, edozein komunikabidek bezela aztertzen dugu, formatua eman -- batzutan nahiko zaila egiten zaigun arren, kotutan izanik datu base erraldoietaz ari garela -- argitara ateratzen dugu eta ondoren geure burua defenditu saieztezinak diren eraso politiko eta legalez.
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?
CA: Beraz, saiatzen zarete ziurtatzen dokumentuak egiazkoak direla. Baino benetan ez duzue ia inoiz informazioaren jatorria ezagutzen.
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.
JA: Hala da, bai. Oso gutxitan jakiten dugu. Eta inoiz enteratuko bagina lehen bait lehen informazioa desegiten dugu. (Telefono dei bat) Madarikatua.
(Laughter)
(Barreak)
CA: I think that's the CIA asking what the code is for a TED membership.
CA: Uste dut CIA-koak dituzula galdezka TEDen bazkide egiteko kodea zein den jakin nahian.
(Laughter)
(Barreak)
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?
Ongi, har dezagun adibide bat, Honako hau orain dela urte batzuk filtratu zenuten. Dokumentu hau erakusterik bagenu... Duela urte batzuk Kenian gertatutako kontu bat da. Esan diezagukezu zer filtratu zenuten eta zer geratu zen?
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.
JA: Hau Kroll Txostena da. Inteliligentziaren txosten sekretu bat zen Keniako gobernuak agindutakoa 2004.ean hautatuak izan ondoren. 2004 aurretik, Kenian agintari Daniel arap Moi izan zen 18 urtez jarraian. Kenyako diktadore bigun bat izan zen. Eta Kibaki agintera iritsi zenean -- saiatu ziren indar kualizio baten bitartez Keniako korrupzioa garbitzen -- txosten hau agindu zuten, bi milloi libera gastatu zituzten honetan eta berarekin zetorren txostenean. Gero gobernuak ezkutatu egin zuen eta Moiren aurkako palanka politiko gisa erabili, orduko gizonik aberatsena zena -- oraindik gizonik aberatsena da -- Kenian. Bera da Keniako kazetaritzaren altxorra. Horrela haruntz joan nintzen 2007an, eta hura lortzea lortu genuen justu hateskundeen aurretik -- Abenduaren 28ko hauteskundeetan. Erreportai hau argitaratu genuen, Kibaki presidente berriak 3 egun geroago, pakeak egitea erabaki ondoren garbitzera zijoan gizon harekin, Daniel arap Moi. Horrela txosten hau karga bat bihurtu zen Kibaki presidentearen bizkarrean.
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.
CA: Eta -- historia luze hau laburtzeko -- Kenian informazio hau filtratu zen, ez komunikabide ofizialetatik, zeharka baizik. Eta zure iritziz, eragina izan zuen hauteskundeetan. JA: Bai. Orduan The Guardian-en portada bilakatu zen eta Kenyaren inguruko herri guzietan argitaratu zen, Tanzania eta Hego Afrikako komunikabideetan. Eta horrela iritsi zen kanpotik. Eta, egun batzuk geroago, Keniako prensa seguru sentitu zen hortaz aritzeko. Eta Kenyako Telebistan 20 gauetan jarraian aritu ziren, bozketak ehuneko 10-ean aldatu zituen, Kenyako inteligentzia txosten baten arabera, auteskundeen emaitzak aldatu zituen.
CA: Wow, so your leak really substantially changed the world?
CA: Wow, orduan zuen filtrazioak benetan nabarmen aldatu zuen mundua?
JA: Yep.
JA: Bai.
(Applause)
(Txaloak)
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.
CA: Hara -- Azaltzera goaz bideo zati motz honetan Baghdaden izandako egazkin eraso bat. Bideoa bera luzeagoa da. Baina honakoa zati motz bat da. Hau -- material gogorra da, abisatzen zaituztet.
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.
Irratia: ...beraien gainera iritsi orduko, txikitu itzazue. Zure tropa ikusten dut, lau bat Humvee ditut, uh, gertu ... Baimena duzu.Ados. Sua. Esan noiz dauzkazun. Tiro egin dezagun. Erre ditzagun danak. Ekin suari! (Tirokatzen ) Jarraitu tiroka. Jarraitu botatzen. (Tirokatzen) Jarraitu tirokatzen. Hotel... Bushmaster Two-Six, Bushmaster Two-Six, mugitu beharra daukagu, oraintxe! Ados, zortzi tipo oraintxe eraso ditugu. Bai, bi txori ikusten [helikopteroak], eta tiroka jarraitzen dugu. Roger. Hemen ditut. Two-Six, hemen Two-Six, abian goaz. Oops, barkatu. Zer gertatzen zen? Arraioa, Kyle. Hori bai, hahaha. Eman diet..
CA: So, what was the impact of that?
CA: Eta zein izan zen honen eragina?
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.
JA: Honetan lanean aritu zen jendearengan gogorra izan zen. Bukaeran 2 lagun bidali genituen Baghdadera historia hau sakonki ikertzera. Beraz hau hiru erasoetatik lehenena da eszena hartan gertatu zena.
CA: So, I mean, 11 people died in that attack, right, including two Reuters employees?
CA: Orduan oker ez banaiz 11 pertsona hil ziren erasoan, horien artean Reuters-eko bi langile ?
JA: Yeah. Two Reuters employees, two young children were wounded. There were between 18 and 26 people killed all together.
Bai, Reuters-eko bi langile, bi ume gazte zaurituak izan ziren. Denera 18 tik 26 pertsona bitartean erahil zituzten.
CA: And releasing this caused widespread outrage. What was the key element of this that actually caused the outrage, do you think?
CA: Eta gertaera hau argitaratzean eskandalua eragin zuen. Zeintzuk dira honen gakoak oraindik ere eskandalua sortarazteko, zure ustetan?
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.
JA: Ez dakit ba, Suposatzen dut jendeak ikus dezakela indar desoreka zeharo nabarmena. Batetik pertsonak ditugu paseatzen lasai asko kaletik zehar, eta orduan Apatxe helikoptero bat kilometro batetara kokatuz 30-milimetroko munizioaz jo ta su edozeinengan -- edozer eskusaren bila hala aritzeko -- eta zaurituak laguntzera zioazenak tirokatzen. Eta bi kazetari zeuden bertan nabarmen matxinatuak ez zirenak bere eguneroko lanean ari zirenak.
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?
CA: Alegia, AEBtako inteligentziako analista bat, Bradley Manning, atxilotua izan zen. Esaten da berak aitortu zuela chat room batetan bideo hau zuei filtratu izana, beste 280,000 AEBetako enbaxadetako kable ezkutuekin batera. Tira, hala egin zuen ?
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.
JA: Guk kable horiek jaso izana ezeztatu dugu. Leporatu zioten, orain dela 5bat egun, 150,000 kable eskuratu eta 50 zabaltzea. Orain, argitaratu dugu urte hasieran Reykjavikeko AEBetako enbaxadako kable bat. Baina hau ez dago derrigorrezko elkarlotuta. Esan nahi dut, neu enbaxa horretako bisitaria nintzela.
CA: I mean, if you did receive thousands of U.S. embassy diplomatic cables ...
CA: Hau da, jasoko bazenitu milaka AEBetako embaxadako kable diplomatiko...
JA: We would have released them. (CA: You would?)
JA: Argitaratu egingo genituen. (CA: Benetan ?)
JA: Yeah. (CA: Because?)
JA: Bai (CA: Zergatik?)
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.
JA: Ba, horrelako gauzak erakusten dutelako benetako izaera esate baterako, Gobernu Arabiarrak nolakoak diren, eta gobernu hauetako giza eskubideen aurkako gehiegikeriak Kable klasifikatuei begiratu ezkero, gisa honetako informazioa dago.
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?
CA: Ba hitzegin dezagun zabalago hontaz. Orokorrean, zein da zuen filosofia? Zergatik dago ondo informazio sekretuen filtrazioak bultzatzea?
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.
JA: Tira, galdera da zer motatako informazioa den inportantea munduarentzat, zein informazio motak lor dezaken aldaketa. Eta informazio asko dago. Erakundeak informazio hau saihesteko esfortzu ekonomikoak egiten ari dira, hau seinale ona da eta informazioa kaleratzen denean, itxaropena dugu zerbait ona egiten ari garela. Zeren hontaz gehien dakiten erakundeak, barrutik ezagutzen dutenak, ahaleginak egiten ari dira ezkutatzeko. Eta hori da praktikan aurkitu duguna. Horrela izan da kazetaritzaren historia.
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?
CA: Baina arriskurik ba al da batetik inplikatuta daudenentzat edo gizartearentzat orokorrean, filtrazioak benetan espero ez diren ondorioak izateko?
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.
JA: Ez behintzat argitaratu dugunarekin ikusi dugunaren arabera. Alegia, kaltearen aurrean babes politika bat dugu. Informazioa tratatzeko modu bat daukagu nolabait bere edukian -- pertsonak identifikatzen badira. Baino ba dira zilegi diren sekretuak -- esate baterako, zure osasun historia; hori zilegi den sekretua da. Tratatzen ditugun informatzaileak aurreratzen zaizkigu eta oso motibatuak daude.
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?
CA: Oso motibatuak daude beraz. Eta zer esango zenioke, adibidez, badakizu, norbaiten aitari... bere semea atzerrian AEBtako-ko armadan izanik, eta esaten du, "Badakizute , zuek agerian jarri duzuena, norbaitek interesa zuen gordetzeko. AEBetako soldadu bat barrez erakusten du hiltzen ari diren pertsonei. Horrek ematen duen itxura -- eman digun itxura milloika pertsonei munduan zehar Amerikar soldaduak anker batzuk direla. Eta ez dira. Nire semea ez. Nola ausartzen zarete?" Ze esango zenioke horri?
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.
JA: Bai, horrelako asko ditugu. Baina gogoratu, Baghdaden dagoen jendeak, Iraken dagoenak, Afghanistanen dagoenak -- ez dute bideoa ikusi beharrik; Haiek egunero ikusten dute. Beraz ez dute bere iritzia aldatuko, edo bere pertzepzioa. Egunero ikusten dutena da. Horrek ikuspuntua eta iritzia aldaraziko dio guzti hori zergekin ordaintzen duen jendeari. Hori da gure itxaropena.
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?
CA: Beraz aurkitu duzute modu bat zuen iritziz gobernuek eta erakundeek dituzten sekretu ilunak argitzeko. Argitasuna ona da. Baina ez al duzu ironiarik ikusten, zuk argi hori pizteko, zuk, zerorrek, zure iturrien inguruan sekretua sortu beharra ?
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.
JA: Ez batere. Guk ez bait dugu oraindik Wikileaks-en disidentziarik. Ez dugu iturririk beste informazio iturrien disidente direnik. Azalduko balira, egoera zail baten aurrean izango ginateke. Baina agian guk dugun jokatzeko moduagatik, jendea sentitzen da moralki konprometituta gure lana jarraitzera, eta ez zapuztera.
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?
CA:Jakin nahiko nuke, orainarte entzundakoaren arabera -- kuriositatea dut gure TED-eko entzuleekin batera. Badakizu, izan daitezkela ikuspegi desberdinak Wikileaks eta Juleanen inguruan. Badakizu, heroia -- gizartearen heroia -- argitasuna dakarkiguna. Eta arazo sortzaile arriskutsua. Norentzat zara heroi ? Norentzat arazo sortzaile arriskutsua ?
JA: Oh, come on. There must be some.
JA: Oh, tira. Izango da baten bat.
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?
CA: Talde moldakorrak dira, Julian, moldakorrak. Saia gaitezen hobeto. Azter dezagun beste adibide bat. Hemen dugu oraindik argitara filtratu ez duzuten zerbait, baina TED-entzako bai. Oraintsu gertatu den istoria bati buruzkoa da, ez da hala? Zer da hau ?
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.
JA: Egiten ari garenaren adibide bat da gure egunerokoa. Pasa den urte amaieran -- Azaroan -- putzu batzuetan leherketak izan ziren Albanian Mexikoko Golkoan izandako eztandak bezala, baino ez hain handiak. Eta txosten bat lortu genuen -- halako analisi tekniko bat, gertatutakoaz -- esanaz, segurtasun zaintzaileak izan zirela, konpetentziaren petrolio firma batzuenak, han kamioiak aparkatu eta lehertu zituztenak. Eta Albaniako gobernuko batzuk horren atzean zeudela e.a. Informe teknikoak ez zuen titulurik. Beraz bereziki zaila zen dokumentu hura guretzat. Ezin izan genuen egiaztatu ez bait genekien nork idatzi zuen baino bai zertaz ari zen. Orduan eszeptikoak izan ginen pentsatu baigenduen konpetentziko petrolio firma bat izan zitekeela hura zabaldu nahian. Oinarri hauen arabera, zabaldu genuen esanez, "Begira, gu sinezgaitzak gara hontaz. Ez dakigu, baina zer egin dezakegu ? Material ona dirudi, itxura ona du, baina ezin dugu egiaztatu." Orduan mezu bat jaso genuen aste hortan bertan, idatzi zuen enpresarena, iturria aurkitu nahi zuen -- (Farreak) esanaz. "Hey, guk iturria aurkitu nahi dugu." Eta gu han, "Oh, esaiguzu gehiago. Zein dokumentu da, zehazki, hitzegiten ari zarena ? Erakusterik ba al duzu dokumentu horren jabetza legala duzula? Benetan zuena al da?" Orduan bidali ziguten hau egilearekin Microsoft Word-aren ID-an. Bai. (Txaloak) Hori nahiko sarri gertatu zaigu. Hau da gure metodoetako bat identifikatzeko -- edo materiala egiaztatzeko, saiatu beraiek domumentuak idatzi ditzaten.
CA: Yeah. Have you had information from inside BP?
CA: Bai. Jaso al zenuten informaziorik BP-ren barrutik ?
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.
JA: Bai, asko ditugu, baina esan nahi dut, momentuz, diru sarrera bilketa serio batean ari gera eta ingeniaritza esfortzu batean. Orduan gure publikazio kopurua azken hilabeteetan zehar gutxiago izan da gure segurtasun sistemak berregiten gabiltzalako sortu dugun interes publikoa aparta dela eta. Hau arazo bat da. Alegia, hazten ari den edozein talde hasiberri bezala, nolabait gaindituta aurkitzen gara gure hazkundeagatik. Eta horrek esan nahi du jasotzen ari garela ikaragarri salaketa filtrazio garrantzi handikoak, baina ez dugu behar adina jende informazio hori prozesatzeko.
CA: So that's the key bottleneck, basically journalistic volunteers and/or the funding of journalistic salaries?
CA: Orduan hori da daukazuten arazoa, kazetari boluntarioak eta/edo soldatapeko kazetaritzarako diru sarrerak ?
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.
JA: Bai, eta jende fidagarria. Esan nahi dut, gure organizazioa nekez hazi daiteke azkar darabilgun material motagatik. Beraz berrantolatu beharra dugu jendea lortzeko segurtasun nazionalari buruzko gauzetaz ariko dena, eta maila baxuagoko segurtasun auzietaz.
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?
CA: Beno lagundu gaitzazu zutaz gehiago ezagutzen eta nola iritxi zinen hontara. Uste dut irakurri dudala gaztetxo zinela 37 eskola desberdinetatik pasa zinela. Izan al daiteke?
JA: Well, my parents were in the movie business and then on the run from a cult, so the combination between the two ...
JA: Ongi, nire gurasoak zinearen industrian jardutetik sekta batetik ihesi ibiltzera pasa ziren, beraz bien arteko uztarketa ...
(Laughter)
(Farreak)
CA: I mean, a psychologist might say that's a recipe for breeding paranoia.
CA: Psikologo batek esan zezakeen paranoia sortzeko errezeta bat dela.
JA: What, the movie business?
JA: Nola, zinearen industria ?
(Laughter)
(Farreak)
(Applause)
(Txaloak)
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.
CA: Eta izan zinen baita -- uste dut, hacker bat izan zinen zure gaztaroan eta agintariekin topo egin zenuen geroxeago. JA: Beno, kazetaria nintzen. Zera, nire gaztaroan kazetari ekintzaile bat izan nintzen. Aldizkari bat idatzi nuen, eta horregatik auzipetua izan nintzen gazte nintzela. Orduan argi ibili behar da 'hacker' hitzarekin. Esan nahi dut -- metodo bat da, erabil daitekena, gauza desberdinetarako. Zoritxarrez, gaur egun, gehienbat errusiako mafiak erabiltzen du zure amonaren bankuko kontu zenbakiak lapurtzeko. Beraz hitz hau ez da -- garai batean izan ohi zen bezain polita.
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?
CA: Bai, ongi, nik ez dut inolaz ere uste zu norbaiten amonaren bankuko kontuak lapurtzen zabiltzanik. Baina zein dira zure oinarrizko baloreak ? Emango al zenizkiguke pista batzuk haietaz eta agian zure bizitzako gertakizun bat horiek finkatzen lagundu zizuna?
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.
JA: Ez nago ziur. Baina oinarrizko baloreak: ba, gizon handi eta eskuzabalak biktimarik ez dutela sortzen; biktimei laguntzen diete. Hori nire aitarengan ikasi nuen eta beste zenbait pertsona eskuzabal eta handirengan nire bizitzan izan direnak.
CA: Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims?
CA: Handiak, biktimak sortzea ekiditen duten gizon eskuzabalak; biktimak zaintzen dituzte?
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.
JA: Bai, eta badakizu, ni pertsona borrokalaria naizela, ez naiz oso trebea zaintzeari dagokionez. Baina nolabait -- Ba da beste modu bat biktimak zaintzeko, zera da, gaizkileak kontrolatuz. Eta hori izan da nire nortasunean izan den zerbait betidanik.
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?
CA: Kontaiguzu bada, oso azkar azken minutu hontan, historia: zer gertatu zen Islandian? Zeozer publikatu zenuen han, eta banku batekin arazoak izan zenituen, orduan hango kazetariek istorio hura gelditzeko agindu judiziala jaso zuten. Horren ordez, zure bertsioa argitaratu zuten. Horrek oso famatua egin zintuen Islandian. Zer gertatu zen gero?
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.
JA: Bai, hau kasu bikaina da, zera. Islandia finantza krisi batean sartu zen. Munduko edozein herrialdek izandako kolperik gogorrena. Bankari zegokion sektorea 10 aldiz BPG-a zen gainentzeko ekonomiarekin alderatuz. Edozen modutan, txosten hau argitaratu genuen pasaden urteko Uztailean. Eta telebista nazionalak beste agindu judizial bat jaso zuen airera irten baino bost minutu lehenago. Pelikuletan bezala, agindua erredakziora iritxi zen, eta kazetaria han zegoen esanaz bezela, "Hau ez da inoiz gertatu. Zer egingo dugu?" Horren ordez soilik webgunean azaldu genuen, denbora guzian, bete lanean. Eta oso ezagunak egin ginen Islandian, hara joan eta gertakari hontaz hitzegin genuen. Ba zen sentipen bat hango gizartean hura ezin zitekeela pasa berriro. Eta ondorioz, hango politikari batzuekin lanean eta beste zenbait nazioarteko legegizonekin, jarri genituen batera lege sorta bat Islandiarentzat itsasoan zegoen paraiso moduko bat prensa askearentzat, munduko kazetagintzarentzat berme handiena zuena, Premio Nobel berriarekin adierazpen askatasunarentzat. Islandia herrialde Nordiko bat da Noruega bezela, sistemaz baliatzeko gai da. Eta orain hillabete, hau Islandiako parlamentuak onartu zuen aho batez.
CA: Wow.
CA: Wow.
(Applause)
(Txaloak)
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?
Azken galdera, Julian. Etorkizunaz gogoeta egiten duzunean, ze uste duzu izan daitekela halako Anai Handia kontrol gehiago eragiten, sekretu gehiago, edo guk zainduko dugu Anai Handia, edo dena jokoan dago alde guzietatik ?
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.
JA: Ez nago seguru zein bide jarraituko dugun. Presio ikaragarriak daude adierazpen askatasun legedia bateratzeko baita gardentasunerako legedia ere munduan zehar -- EB-aren barruan., China eta AEB-en artean. Zein bide hartuko den? Zaila da ikustea. Horregatik da hain momentu interesgarria bertan egoteko. Zeren ezfortzu txiki batekin batera ala bestera bideratu dezakegu.
CA: Well, it looks like I'm reflecting the audience's opinion to say, Julian, be careful, and all power to you.
CA: Ongi, uste dut gure entzuleen iritziarekin bat natorrela esatean, Julian, argi ibili eta ondo joan dakizula.
JA: Thank you, Chris. (CA: Thank you.)
JA: Esker mila, Chis. (CA: Eskerrak zuri.)
(Applause)
(Txaloak)