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, dobrodošao. Govori se da je WikiLeaks, tvoje djelo, u posljednjih nekoliko godina objavilo više tajnih dokumenata nego ostatak svjetskih medija zajedno. Zar je to zbilja moguće?
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 Assagne: Da, zar je to zbilja moguće? Zabrinjavajuće, zar ne: da je ostatak svjetskih medija toliko loš u onome što radi da je mala skupina aktivista sposobna objaviti više takve vrste informacija nego ostatak svjetskih medija zajedno.
CA: How does it work? How do people release the documents? And how do you secure their privacy?
CA: Kako to funkcionira? Kako ljudi objavljuju dokumente? I kako osiguravate tajnost njihovog identiteta?
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: Postoje, koliko smo upoznati, klasični zviždači. Posjedujemo određen broj načina na koji nam proslijeđuju informacije. Koristimo vrhunsko šifriranje za prebacivanje informacija na internetu, brisanje tragova, prolazak kroz pravne nadležnosti, poput onih Švedske i Belgije, koje propisuju određene pravne zaštite. Dobivamo informacije kroz poštu, običnu poštu, šifrirane i nešifrirane, istražujemo ih poput svake obične medijske organizacije, oblikujemo ih... što je ponekad veoma težak posao, jer govorimo o veoma velikim bazama podataka, objavljujemo ih u javnosti, i onda se branimo od neizbježnih pravnih i političkih napada.
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: Dakle, ulažete napor da potvrdite da su dokumenti legitimni, ali zapravo gotovo nikad ne znate identitet izvora.
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: U pravu ste, da. Veoma rijetko znamo. Ako ikad i saznamo u određenom trenutku takvu vrstu informacija uništavamo što prije. (Zvonjava telefona) K vragu.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
CA: I think that's the CIA asking what the code is for a TED membership.
CA: Mislim da to CIA-u zanima koji je kod za članstvo u TED-u.
(Laughter)
(Smijeh)
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?
Uzmimo primjer. Ovo je nešto što je procurilo prije par godina. Ako možete pokazati dokument... Ovo je priča iz Kenije prije par godina. Možete li nam reći što ste objavili i što se dogodilo?
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: Ovo je izvještaj "Kroll". Ovo je bio izvještaj tajne obavještajne službe pod nadzorom kenijske vlade nakon njihovog izbora 2004. godine. Do 2004. godine, Kenya je bila pod vlašću Daniel arap Moia. 18 godina. On je bio blagi kenijski diktator. Kad je Kibaki došao na vlast, kroz koaliciju snaga koje su pokušavale očistiti Keniju od korupcije... naručili su ovaj izvještaj, potrošili oko 2 milijuna funti na njega i s njim povezani izvještaj. I tad ga je vlada zataškala i iskoristila ga kao političko oružje protiv Moia, koji je bilo najbogatiji čovjek, još uvijek jest najbogatiji čovjek u Keniji. Ovo je Sveti Gral kenijskog novinarstva. Otišao sam tamo 2007., i uspjeli smo se dočepati dokumenta netom prije općih izbora, 28. prosinca. netom prije općih izbora, 28. prosinca. Kad smo objavili izvješće, učinili smo to 3 dana nakon nakon što se novoizabrani predsjednik, Kibaki, odlučio udružiti sa čovjekom kojeg je planirao maknuti, odlučio udružiti sa čovjekom kojeg je planirao maknuti, Danielom arap Moiem. Ovaj izvještaj postao je smrtni uteg oko vrata predsjednika Kibakija.
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: I, da skratimo priču, priča o izvještaju procurila je u Keniji, ne od strane službenih medija, već neizravno. I po vašem mišljenju, promijenila je tijek izbora. JA. Da. Priča je došla na naslovnicu Guardiana i nakon toga objavljena je u susjednim zemljama Kenije, tanzanijskom i južnoafričkom tisku. Tako je došla izvana. To je, nakon nekoliko dana, učinilo kenijski tisak dovoljno sigurnim da raspravlja o tome. 20 dana zaredom priča se vrtila na kenijskoj televiziji, promjenivši glasove za 10%, kako navodi kenijski obavještajni izvještaj, što je promjenilo krajnji rezultat izbora.
CA: Wow, so your leak really substantially changed the world?
CA: Wow, dakle vaše objavljivanje, je zaista značajno promjenilo svijet?
JA: Yep.
JA: Da.
(Applause)
(pljesak)
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: Pokazat ćemo vam kratak isječak iz videozapisa zračnog napada na Bagdad. Sam videozapis je duži. Ali ovo je kratak isječak. Upozoravam vas, ovo je uznemirujući materijal.
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.
Radio: ... samo j**' te, jednom kad ih naciljaš, pali. Vidim to, uh, imam oko 4 Humveesa, uh, tamo pored... Čist si. U redu. Pucam. Javi mi kad ih pogodite. Pucajmo. Raznesi ih sve. 'Ajde, pucajte! (pucnjava) Nastavi pucati. Nastavi pucati. (pucnjava) Nastavi pucati. Hotel...Bushmaster 2-6, Bushmaster 2-6, moramo otići, sad! OK, upravo smo naciljali svih 8 osoba. Da, vidimo dvije ptice (helikopteri), i dalje pucamo. Prijem. Imam ih. 2-6, ovdje 2-6, krećemo. Oops, oprosti. Što se događalo? K vragu, Kyle. Ok, hahahah. Pogodio sam ih.
CA: So, what was the impact of that?
CA: Dakle, kakav je bio utjecaj ove snimke?
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: Utjecaj na ljude koji su radili na ovome je bio snažan. Na kraju smo poslali dvoje ljudi u Bagdad da detaljnije istraže tu priču. Ovo je samo prvi od tri napada koja su se dogodila u toj sceni.
CA: So, I mean, 11 people died in that attack, right, including two Reuters employees?
CA: Jedanaestero ljudi je poginulo u tom napadu, uključujući dvoje zaposlenika Reutersa, zar ne?
JA: Yeah. Two Reuters employees, two young children were wounded. There were between 18 and 26 people killed all together.
JA: Da. Dva zaposlenika Reutersa, dvoje male djece bilo je ozlijeđeno. Ukupno je ubijeno između 18 i 26 ljudi.
CA: And releasing this caused widespread outrage. What was the key element of this that actually caused the outrage, do you think?
CA: Ovo objavljivanje uzrokovalo je masovan bijes. Koji je, po vašem mišljenju, bio ključni element koji je uzrokovao bijes?
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: Ne znam, pretpostavljam da su ljudi vidjeli svo ogromno neslaganje u sili. Imate ljude koji opušteno hodaju ulicom, i američki helikopter jedan kilometar izad njih koji ispaljuje 30-milimetarske metke na sve... samo gledajući razlog da to napravi... i ubijajući ljude koji spašavaju ranjene. Tamo su bila dva novinara koji očito nisu bili pobunjenici, jer su radili svoj posao.
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: Uhićen je jedan američki obavještajni analitičar, Bradley Manning. Navodno je priznao u chat sobi, da je predao ovaj video isječak vama, skupa sa 280 000 povjerljivih američkih telegrama. Je li?
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: Mi smo demantirali primitak tih telegrama. Osuđen je, prije otprilike 5 dana, zbog pribavljanja 150 000 telegrama, i objavljivanja njih 50. Sad, mi smo objavili ranije ove godine telegram američke ambasade u Reykjaviku. No, to nije nužno povezano. Bio sam poznati posjetitelj te ambasade.
CA: I mean, if you did receive thousands of U.S. embassy diplomatic cables ...
CA:Mislim, da ste primili tisuće diplomatskih telegrama američke ambasade...
JA: We would have released them. (CA: You would?)
JA: Objavili bi ih. (CA: Biste?)
JA: Yeah. (CA: Because?)
JA: Da. (CA: Jer...?)
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: Jer, takva vrsta stvari, otkriva stvarno stanje recimo arapskih vlada; pravu zloupotrebu ljudskih prava u tim vladama. Ako pogledate telegrame koji su otkriveni, takva vrsta materijala je u njima.
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: Hajdemo razgovarati malo općenitije o ovome. Općenito, koja je Vaša filozofija? Zašto je ispravno poticati curenje tajnih informacija?
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: Pitanje je kakva je vrsta informacija bitna za svijet, kakva vrsta informacija može dovesti do promjena. Mnogo je informacija. Informacije za koje organizacije troše novčana sredstva da ih zataškaju; to je dobar znak da kad informacija ugleda svjetlo dana, postoji nada da će nešto dobro proizaći iz nje. Organizacije koje ih najbolje znaju, koje ih znaju od početka do kraja, troše vrijeme da ih zataškaju To je ono na što smo naišli u praksi. I to je povijest novinarstva.
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: Ali, postoje li rizici, za umješane ljude, ili društvo u cjelini da curenje informacija zapravo može imati nenamjerne posljedice?
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: Ne, koliko smo mi vidjeli s onim što smo objavili. Mislim, mi imamo politiku prevencije štete. Imamo način na koji se odnosimo prema informacijama koje imaju određenu vrstu osobne... ...osobnih informacija u sebi. No, postoje legitimne tajne... vaši liječnički karton; to je pravna tajna. Mi radimo sa zviždačima koji nam prilaze, i koji su veoma dobro motivirani.
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: Dakle dobro su motivirani. Što bi rekli, na primjer, roditelju nekoga- čiji sin služi američkoj vojsci, i kaže: "Znate, objavili ste nešto za što je netko imao poticaj da se objavi. Prikazuje američkog vojnika kako se smije ljudima koji umiru. To daje dojam - dalo je dojam milijunima ljudi diljem svijeta da su američki vojnici nehumani. Zapravo, nisu. Moj sin nije. Kako se usuđujete?" Što biste rekli na to?
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: Da, dobivamo mnogo takvih reakcija. No, sjetite se, ljudi u Bagadu, ljudi u Iraku, ljudi u Afganistanu... oni ne trebaju vidjeti tu snimku; oni to gledaju svaki dan. To neće promijeniti njihovo mišljenje. Neće promijeniti njihovo shvaćanje. To je ono što oni vide svaki dan. Promijenit će shvaćanje i mišljenje ljudi koji za sve to plaćaju. Tu leži naša nada.
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: Dakle našli ste način da osvijetlite ono što smatrate tamnim tajnama tvrtki i vlada. Svjetlo je dobro. Ali ne vidite li ironiju u činjenici da, da biste osvjetlili s tim svjetlom, sami morate tajiti svoje izvore?
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: Ne baš. Mislim, još uvijek nemamo WikiLeaks odmetnike. Nemamo izvore koji se ne slažu s drugim izvorima. Kad bi oni istupili, to bi bila škakljiva situacija za nas. Ali mi po svoj prilici djelujemo na način da se ljudi osjećaju moralno primorani nastaviti našu misiju, ne zaj<b>*</b>.
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: Zapravo me zanima, samo na temelju ovoga što smo čuli do sad... zanima me mišljenje TED publike. Znate, možda postoji nekoliko gledišta na WikiLeaks i Juliana. Heroj, heroj ljudi, nosioc važnog svjetla. Opasni smutljivac. Tko misli da je heroj? Tko misli da je opasni smutljivac?
JA: Oh, come on. There must be some.
JA: Ma, hajde. Mora postojati netko.
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: Ovo je blaga publika, Julian, blaga publika. Moramo se više potruditi. Pokažimo im još jedan primjer. Ovo je nešto što još niste objavili, ali objavit ćete za TED. Ovo je intrigantna priča koja se tek dogodila, zar ne? O čemu se radi?
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: Ovo je primjer onoga što radimo svaki dan. Kasno prošle godine - u studenom prošle godine - dogodio se niz eksplozija bušotina u Albaniji poput one u Meksičkom zaljevu, no ne tolikih razmjera. Imamo izvještaj - neku vrstu inžinjerske analize onoga što se dogodilo... koja govori da su, u stvari, zaštitari nekog od suparnika, različitih suparničkih naftnih tvrtki, parkirali kamione tamo i raznijeli ih. Dio albanske vlade je bio umješan itd., itd. Ovaj inženjerski izvještaj nema nikakvo uzglavlje. Bio je to veoma težak dokument za nas. Nismo mogli provjeriti njegovu autentičnost jer nismo znali tko ga je napisao, a znali smo o čemu je. Bili smo sumnjičavi ne poigrava li se suparnička naftna tvrtka s tim. Uzimajući to u obzir, objavili smo to i rekli, "Gle, mi smo sumnjičavi oko ovoga. Ne znamo, ali što možemo napraviti oko toga? Materijal izgleda dobro, imamo osjećaj da je ispravan, ali jednostavno ne možemo provjeriti njegovu autentičnost." Dobili smo pismo baš ovaj tjedan od tvrtke koja ga je napisala, koja želi ući u trag izvoru - (smijeh) i koja govori, "Hej, želimo pronaći izvor." Na što smo mi odgovorili, "Oh, recite nam više. O kojem točno dokumentu govorite? Možete li nam pokazati da imate pravnu moć nad tim dokumentom? Da li je zbilja Vaš?" Tako su nam poslali ovaj snimak ekrana sa autorom na osobnoj karti u Microsoft Wordu.. Da. (pljesak) Ovo se, međutim, dogodilo poprilično mnogo puta. Ovo je jedna od naših metoda identificiranja - provjeravanja materijala - pokušati natjerati ove dečke da napišu pisma.
CA: Yeah. Have you had information from inside BP?
CA: Da. Jeste imali informacije unutar BP-a?
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: Da, imamo mnogo, ali, u ovom trenutku, prolazimo kroz ozbiljne inženjerske pokušaje i pokušaje sakupljanja novčanih sredstava. Naša stopa objavljivanja u zadnjih nekoliko mjeseci je minimalizirana dok prepravljamo naše pričuvne sisteme za izvanredni javni interes koji imamo. To je problem. Kao svaka rastuća organizacija u svojim početcima, na neki način smo preplavljeni sa vlastitim rastom. To znači da dobivamo ogromnu količinu informacija od strane zviždača veoma visokog kalibra, ali nemamo dovoljno ljudi da zapravo istraže sve te informacije.
CA: So that's the key bottleneck, basically journalistic volunteers and/or the funding of journalistic salaries?
CA: To je zapravo ključni limitirajući faktor, novinari volonteri i/ili financiranje plaća novinarima?
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: Da. Da, i ljudi kojima možemo vjerovati. Mi smo organizacija kojoj je teško rasti jako brzo zbog vrste materijala s kojom se bavimo. Moramo se restrukturirati da bi imali ljude koji će se baviti sa stvarima najviše nacionalne sigurnosti, a onda sa manjim slučajevima.
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: Pomozi nam shvatiti tebe osobno i kako si došao do toga da radiš ovo. Mislim da sam pročitao da si kao dijete išao u 37 različitih škola. Zar je to točno?
JA: Well, my parents were in the movie business and then on the run from a cult, so the combination between the two ...
JA: Da, moji roditelji su bili u filmskoj industriji i onda u bijegu od kulta, tako da kombinacija između to dvoje...
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
CA: I mean, a psychologist might say that's a recipe for breeding paranoia.
CA: Mislim, psiholog bi mogao reći da je to recept za nastanak paranoje.
JA: What, the movie business?
JA: Što, filmska industrija?
(Laughter)
(smijeh)
(Applause)
(pljesak)
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: Bio si također - bio si također haker u veoma ranoj dobi i susreo se s vlastima veoma rano. JA: Pa, bio sam novinar. Znate, bio sam veoma mlad novinar aktivist u veoma ranoj dobi. Uređivao sam časopis, bio osuđivan zbog njega kao adolescent. Morate biti oprezni s hakiranjem. Mislim, postoji... postoji metoda koja može biti upotrebljena za različite stvari. Na žalost, trenutno, najviše je korištena od strane ruske mafije kako bi se ukrali bankovni računi Vaše bake. Tako da taj izraz nije... nije lijep kao što je nekad bio.
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: Da, pa, zasigurno ne mislim da kradeš bankovne račune ičijih baka. Ali što je s tvojim osnovnim vrijednostima? Možeš li nam objasniti što su one i možda navesti događaj u svom životu koji ih je pomogao oblikovati?
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: Nisam siguran o događaju. Ali osnovne vrijednosti: dobri, sposobni, velikodušni ljudi ne stvaraju žrtve; oni njeguju žrtve. I to je nešto što sam naučio od oca i ostalih sposobnih, velikodušnih ljudi u mom životu.
CA: Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims?
CA: Sposobni, velikodušni ljudi ne stvaraju žrtve; oni njeguju žrtve?
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: Da. I, znate, ja sam ratoborna osoba, tako da nisam pretjerano dobar u njegovanju. Ali - postoji drugi način njegovanja žrtvi, a taj je kontroliranje počinitelja zločina. I to je nešto što je u mojoj osobnosti jako dugo vremena.
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: Reci nam, jako brzo u zadnjoj minuti, priču: što se dogodilo na Islandu? Zapravo ste objavili nešto tamo, naišli na probleme s bankom, nakon čega je novinskoj agenciji tamo zabranjena objava priče. Umjesto toga, objavili su vašu stranu priče. To vas je učinilo veoma utjecajnim na Islandu. Što se dogodilo nakon toga?
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: Da, znate, ovo je velik slučaj. Island je prošao kroz financijsku krizu. Bio je to najveći udarac na bilo koju zemlju u svijetu. Bankarski sektor je bio 10 puta BDP-a veći od ostatka ekonomije. U svakom slučaju, objavili smo ovaj izvještaj u srpnju prošle godine. Nacionalnoj televiziji bilo je zabranjeno prikazivanje 5 minuta prije nego što je prilog trebao biti emitiran. Kao u filmu, zabrana se našla na stolu, i voditelj je bio, "Ovo se nikad prije nije dogodilo. Što da radimo?" Pa smo umjesto toga prikazali web stranicu, cijelo to vrijeme, kao zamjenu. Postali smo veoma poznati na Islandu, otišli smo tamo i pričali o ovoj temi. Mišljenje je u zajednici da se nešto tako ne smije više dogoditi. Kao rezultat rada sa nekima od islandskih političara i drugim međunarodnim pravnim stručnjacima, sastavili smo neku vrstu novog paketa zakona za Island da postane "offshore" raj za slobodni tisak, sa najjačim zaštitama novinara na svijetu, sa novom Nobelovom nagradom za slobodu govora. Island je nordijska zemlja pa je, poput Norveške, sposobna unijeti to u svoj sistem. Baš prije mjesec dana, ovo je jednoglasno prošlo u islandskom parlamentu.
CA: Wow.
CA: Wow.
(Applause)
(pljesak)
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?
Posljednje pitanje, Julian. Kad razmišljaš o budućnosti, misliš li da je vjerojatnije da će Big Brother preuzeti više količinu kontrole, više privatnosti, ili ćemo mi gledati Big Brothera, ili će se to tek odigrati?
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: Nisam siguran u kojem će smjeru krenuti. Mislim, postoje ogromni pritisci da se izjednače zakoni o slobodi govora i transparentnosti diljem svijeta - unutar EU, između Kine i SAD-a. Kojim će putem krenuti? Teško je vidjeti. Zato je veoma zanimljivo biti u ovom vremenu, jer sa samo malo truda možemo pomaknuti ravnotežu na jednu ili drugu stranu.
CA: Well, it looks like I'm reflecting the audience's opinion to say, Julian, be careful, and all power to you.
CA: Pa, mislim da govorim u ime publike kad kažem Julian, budi oprezan i samo naprijed.
JA: Thank you, Chris. (CA: Thank you.)
JA: Hvala, Chris. (CA: Hvala tebi.)
(Applause)
(pljesak)