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?
Kris Anderson: Džulijane, dobrodošao. Kaže se da je "Vikiliks", Vaša beba, objavio... u poslednjih nekoliko godina je objavio više poverljivih dokumenata nego ostali svetski mediji zajedno. Da li je moguće da je to istina?
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.
Džulijan Asanž: Da, može li biti istina? To zabrinjava - zar ne? - da ostatak svetskih medija tako loše radi posao, da je mala grupa aktivista u stanju da objavi više informacija takve vrste, nego svi ostali svetski mediji zajedno.
CA: How does it work? How do people release the documents? And how do you secure their privacy?
KA: Kako to funkcioniše? Kako ljudi objavljuju ta dokumenta? I kako im osiguravate privatnost?
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.
DžA: To su - koliko je nama poznato - klasični insajderi. Imamo nekoliko načina na koje oni mogu da nam dostave informacije. Koristimo prvoklasno kodiranje da prenosimo stvari preko interneta, da sakrijemo tragove, prođemo pored pravnih nadležnosti, kao Švedska i Belgija, da obezbedimo tu pravnu zaštitu. Informacije dobijamo poštom, običnom poštom, šifrovane ili ne, pregledamo ih kao obična novinska organizacija, presložimo - što je nekad nešto što je veoma teško uraditi, kada govorimo o ogromnim bazama informacija - objavimo u javnosti i onda se branimo od neizbežnih 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?
KA: Znači ulažete napor da osigurate da su dokumenta legitimna. Ali zapravo skoro nikada 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.
DžA: Tako je, da. Samo veoma retko znamo. I ako u nekom trenutku saznamo, onda što pre uništimo tu informaciju. (telefon zvoni) Prokletstvo.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
CA: I think that's the CIA asking what the code is for a TED membership.
KA: Mislim da to CIA želi da sazna kod za članstvo u TED-u.
(Laughter)
(smeh)
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 neki primer. Ovo ste pustili pre nekoliko godina. Ako možemo da dobijemo taj dokument... Dakle, ovo je bila priča u Keniji pre nekoliko godina. Možete li nam reći šta ste objavili i šta se desilo?
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.
DžA: Ovo je "Kroll" izveštaj. To je bio izveštaj tajne obaveštajne službe koji je poručila kenijska vlada posle izbora 2004. Pre 2004. Kenijom je vladao Danijel arap Moi nekih 18 godina. On je bio blagi diktator u Keniji. A kada je Kibaki došao na vlast - kroz koaliciju snaga koje su pokušavale da okončaju korupciju u Keniji - naručili su ovaj izveštaj, potrošili oko dva miliona funti na ovo i na još jedan izveštaj. Onda je vlada to sakrila i koristila kao političku prednost nad Moiem, koji je bio najbogatiji čovek - i dalje je najbogatiji čovek - u Keniji. To je Sveti Gral kenijskog novinarstva. Ja sam otišao tamo 2007. i uspeli smo da se dočepamo ovoga neposredno pred izbore - nacionalne izbore, 28. decembra. Kada smo objavili taj izveštaj, bilo je to tri dana pošto je novi predsednik, Kibaki, odlučio da se udruži sa čovekom kojeg je želeo da "očisti", Danijelom arap Moijem. Tako da je ovaj izveštaj onda postao kamen oko vrata predsednika 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.
KA: I - mislim, da skratimo priču - u Keniji se saznalo za taj izveštaj, ne od zvaničnih medija, nego indirektno. I po Vašem mišljenju, to je promenilo izbore. DžA: Da. To je dospelo na naslovnu stranu "Gardijana" i onda se štampalo u svim susednim zemljama, u tanzanijskim i južnoafričkim novinama. Tako da je ušlo spolja. Zbog toga se, posle nekoliko dana, kenijska štampa osećala bezbedno da o tome govori. Dvadeset noći uzastopno je emitovano na kenijskoj televiziji, promenilo je glasove za 10% prema izveštaju kenijske obaveštajne službe, što je promenilo ishod izbora.
CA: Wow, so your leak really substantially changed the world?
KA: Opa, znači Vaše objavljivanje je zaista značajno promenilo svet?
JA: Yep.
DžA: Da.
(Applause)
(aplauz)
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.
KA: Pokazaćemo kratak video klip vazdušnog napada u Bagdadu. Sam video je duži. Ali evo kratkog isečka. Ovo je - ovo je intenzivan materijal, moram da vas upozorim.
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 jebeno, kad ih vidiš, pali. Vidim vaš element, vidim oko četiri Hamvija, mmm tamo pored... Čisto je. U redu. Palim. Javite kad ih pogodite. Pucajmo. Zapalite ih sve. 'Ajde, pucajte! (pucanje) Nastavite da pucate. Nastavite da pucate. (pucanje) Nastavite da pucate. Hotel... Bušmaster 2-6, Bušmaster 2-6, moramo da se pomeramo, sada! U redu, upravo smo naciljali svih osam osoba. Da, vidimo dvoje i još uvek pucamo. Prijem. Imam ih. 2-6, ovde 2-6, u pokretu smo. Ups, izvinjavam se. Šta se dešavalo? Prokletstvo, Kajl. U redu, hahha. Pogodio sam ih.
CA: So, what was the impact of that?
KA: Dakle, kakav je bio uticaj ovoga?
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.
DžA: Uticaj na ljude koji su radili na tome je bio žestok. Na kraju smo poslali dvoje ljudi u Bagdad da detaljnije istraže tu priču. Dakle ovo je samo prvi od tri napada koji se desio u toj sceni.
CA: So, I mean, 11 people died in that attack, right, including two Reuters employees?
KA: Znači, 11 ljudi je poginulo u tom napadu, je l' tako, uključujući dva "Rojtersova" radnika?
JA: Yeah. Two Reuters employees, two young children were wounded. There were between 18 and 26 people killed all together.
DžA: Da. Dva radnika "Rojtersa", dvoje dece je ranjeno. 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?
KA: I objavljivanje ovoga je izazvalo bes na sve strane. Šta mislite da je ključno u ovome, a što je izazvalo taj bes?
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.
DžA: Ne znam, pretpostavljam da ljudi vide ogromno neslaganje u sili. Imate ljude koji opušteno šetaju ulicom, i "Apač" helikopter koji stoji u uglu i ispaljuje 30-milimetarske granate na sve - tražeći bilo kakav izgovor za to - i ubija ljude koji spašavaju ranjenike. Tu su bila umešana dva novinara koji očigledno nisu bili pobunjenici jer to im je 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?
KA: Jedan analitičar američke obaveštajne službe, Bredli Mening, je uhapšen. Navodno je on priznao da Vam je dostavio ove snimke, zajedno sa još 280.000 poverljivih telegrama američke ambasade. Mislim, da li je?
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.
DžA: Pa, porekli smo primanje tih telegrama. On je pre nekih pet dana optužen da je došao do 150.000 telegrama i da je objavio 50. E sad, mi smo ranije ove godine objavili jedan telegram iz američke ambasade u Rejkjaviku. Ali to nije nužno povezano. uvaženi posetilac te ambasade.
CA: I mean, if you did receive thousands of U.S. embassy diplomatic cables ...
KA: Mislim, da ste dobili hiljade američkih diplomatskih telegrama...
JA: We would have released them. (CA: You would?)
DžA: Objavili bismo ih. (KA: Biste?)
JA: Yeah. (CA: Because?)
DžA: Da. (KA: Zašto?)
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.
DžA: Pa, zato što takve stvari otkrivaju kakvo je pravo stanje recimo, arapskih vlada, prave zloupotrebe ljudskih prava u tim vladama. Ako pogledate telegrame koji su otkriveni, takav materijal se tamo nalazi.
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?
KA: Hajde da malo šire govorimo o ovome. Mislim, uopšteno, koja je Vaša filozofija? Zašto je u redu ohrabrivati objavljivanje 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.
DžA: Pa, postoji pitanje kakve vrste informacija su važne u svetu, kakve vrste informacija mogu dovesti do promene. A postoji mnogo informacija. Dakle informacije za koje organizacije troše ekonomski napor da ih sakriju, su dobar signal da kada te informacije izađu, postoji nada da naprave nešto dobro. Jer organizacije koje ih najbolje znaju, koje ih znaju i spolja i iznutra, ulažu napor da ih sakriju. To smo videli u praksi. I to je istorija 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?
KA: Ali zar ne postoje rizici, bilo za pojedince koji su uključeni u to ili za društvo u celini, kada objavljivanje može imati nenamerne posledice?
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.
DžA: Mi ih nismo primetili u vezi sa bilo čim što smo objavili. Mislim, mi imamo politiku imunizacije protiv štete. Imamo način na koji radimo sa informacijama koje imaju neki lični - koje u sebi imaju informacije o identitetu. Ali postoje legitimne tajne - znate, vaši podaci kod lekara, to je legitimna tajna. Ali mi radimo sa insajderima koji istupaju, a koji su zaista motivisani.
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?
KA: Znači, oni su motivisani. A šta biste rekli, na primer, znate, roditelju nekoga - čiji sin služi u američkoj vojsci i kaže, "Znate šta, objavili ste nešto za šta neko ima interesa da se objavi. To pokazuje američke vojnike kako se smeju ljudima koji umiru. To milionima ljudi na svetu odaje utisak da su američki vojnici nehumani. A oni ustvari nisu. Moj sin nije. Kako se usuđujete?" Šta 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.
DžA: Da, imamo mnogo toga. Ali zapamtite, ti ljudi u Bagdadu, ljudi u Iraku, u Avganistanu - oni ne moraju da gledaju snimak; oni to vide svaki dan. Tako da to neće promeniti njihovo mišljenje. Neće im promeniti percepciju. Oni to vide svaki dan. Promeniće percepciju i mišljenje onih ljudi koji plaćaju sve to. A u tome je 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?
KA: Dakle, pronašli ste način da osvetlite ono što smatrate mračnim tajnama u kompanijama i vladama. Svetlo je dobro. Ali da li vidite ironiju u činjenici da, da biste osvetlili te stvari, vi sami morate da stvorite tajnovitost oko Vaših izvora?
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.
DžA: Ne baš. Mislim, još uvek nemamo "Vikiliks" disidente. Nemamo izvore koji se ne slažu sa drugim izvorima. Kada bi takvi došli, to bi za nas bila nezgodna situacija. Ali mi verovatno radimo na takav način da se ljudi osećaju moralno primoranim da nastave našu misiju, a ne da je unište.
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?
KA: Interesuje me, samo na osnovu ovoga što smo čuli do sada - interesuje me mišljenje TED publike. Znate, možda ima par pogleda na "Vikiliks" i na Džulijana. Znate, heroj - narodni heroj - koji osvetljava ove bitne stvari. Opasni smutljivac. Ko misli da je heroj? Ko misli da je opasni smutljivac?
JA: Oh, come on. There must be some.
DžA: O, hajde. Mora da ima nekog.
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?
KA: Ovo je blaga publika, Džulijane, blaga publika. Moramo da se potrudimo. Pokažimo im još jedan primer. Ovo je nešto što niste još objavili, ali objavljujete za TED. Mislim, intrigantno je da se ovo upravo desilo, zar ne? Šta je ovo?
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.
DžA: Ovo je uzorak onoga što radimo svaki dan. Dakle kasno prošle godine - u novembru prošle godine - bila je serija eksplozija na bušotinama u Albaniji kao ova u meksičkom zalivu, ali ne toliko velike. I dobili smo izveštaj - nekakvu inženjersku analizu toga šta se desilo - koji govori da su ustvari, ljudi iz obezbeđenja konkurenta, neke druge naftne kompanije, parkirali kamione tamo i digli ih u vazduh. I deo albanske vlade je bio umešan, itd itd. A taj izveštaj nije imao ništa u zaglavlju. Tako da je bio prilično težak dokument za nas. Nismo mogli da ga verifikujemo jer nismo znali ko ga je napisao i o čemu je pisao. Tako da smo bili skeptični i možda je konkurentska kompanija samo zakuvavala stvari. Sa tim smo i krenuli, rekli smo, "Vidite, skeptični smo povodom ovoga. Ne znamo, ali šta možemo? Materijal izgleda dobro, osećaj je dobar, ali ne možemo da ga potvrdimo." Onda smo dobili jedno pismo upravo ove nedelje, od kompanije koja je napisala izveštaj i koja je htela da dođe do izvora - (smeh) rekli su, "Hej, mi želimo da saznamo vaš izvor". A mi smo rekli, "O, kažite nam nešto više. O kom dokumentu se tačno radi? Da li možete da dokažete da je to vaš dokument? Da li je stvarno vaš?" Oni su nam poslali snimak ekrana sa identifikacijom autora u "Microsoft Wordu". Da. (aplauz) To se mnogo puta desilo. Kao, ovo je jedan od naših načina identifikacije - potvrde materijala, tako što pokušavamo da nagovorimo te momke da pišu pisma.
CA: Yeah. Have you had information from inside BP?
KA: Da. Da li ste imali informacije iz samog 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.
DžA: Da, imamo ih mnogo, ali u ovom momentu ulažemo velike nepore u skupljanje sredstava i izgradnju. Tako da je objavljivanje u poslednjih nekoliko meseci svedeno na minimum dok preuređujemo naše sisteme za fenomenalno interesovanje javnosti koje imamo. To je problem. Mislim, kao bilo koja mlada rastuća organizacija, mi smo donekle oduševljeni svojim rastom. A to znači da imamo ogroman broj otkrivenih insajdera visokog kalibra, ali nemamo dovoljno ljudi da stvarno obradimo i pregledamo ove informacije.
CA: So that's the key bottleneck, basically journalistic volunteers and/or the funding of journalistic salaries?
KA: Znači to je ključni problem, uglavnom novinari dobrovoljci i/ili finansiranje novinarskih plata?
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.
DžA: Da. Da, i ljudi kojima verujemo. Mislim, mi smo organizacija kojoj je teško da brzo raste zbog vrste materijala sa kojim radimo. Tako da moramo da se restruktuiramo kako bismo imali ljude koji žele da se bave stvarima državne bezbednosti i stvarima koje nisu bezbedne.
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?
KA: Pomozite nam da bolje upoznamo Vas i kako ste počeli ovo da radite. Mislim da sam pročitao da ste kao klinac išli u 37 različitih škola. Da li je to tačno?
JA: Well, my parents were in the movie business and then on the run from a cult, so the combination between the two ...
DžA: Pa, moji roditelji su se bavili filmovima i bežali su od neke sekte, tako da kombinacija ta dva...
(Laughter)
(smeh)
CA: I mean, a psychologist might say that's a recipe for breeding paranoia.
KA: Mislim, neki psiholog bi mogao reći da je to recept za razvijanje paranoje.
JA: What, the movie business?
DžA: Šta, snimanje filmova?
(Laughter)
(smeh)
(Applause)
(aplauz)
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: I bili ste - mislim, takođe ste bili haker kao mladić i vrlo rano ste naleteli na vlast. DžA: Pa, bio sam novinar. Znate, bio sam veoma mladi novinar aktivista. Pisao sam časopis, zbog kog su me kao tinejdžera gonili na sudu. Tako da morate biti oprezni s tim "haker". Mislim, postoji - postoji metod koji može da se razvije za različite stvari. Nažalost, trenutno ga najviše razvija ruska mafija kako bi krala sa bankovnih računa vaših baka. Tako da ta fraza nije - nije tako lepa kao što je bila.
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?
KA: Da, pa, ja sigurno ne mislim da Vi kradete sa računa bilo čije bake. Ali šta je sa Vašim sržnim vrednostima? Možete li da nam dočarate koje su i možda da date neki događaj iz života koji je pomogao da se one učvrste?
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.
DžA: Nisam siguran za događaj. Ali sržne vrednosti: pa, sposobni, velikodušni ljudi ne stvaraju žrtve; oni neguju žrtve. A to je nešto od mog oca i drugih sposobnih, velikodušnih ljudi koji su bili u mom životu.
CA: Capable, generous men do not create victims; they nurture victims?
KA: Sposobni, velikodušni ljudi ne stvaraju žrtve; oni neguju 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.
DžA: Da. Znate, ja sam ratoborna osoba, i nisam baš dobar u negovanju. Ali na neki način - Postoji drugi način negovanja žrtava, a to je hvatanje počinilaca zločina. To je nešto što je u mom karakteru već dugo.
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?
KA: Ispričajte nam brzo, u poslednjim minutima, priču: šta se desilo na Islandu? U suštini, nešto ste tamo objavili, upali u nevolju s nekom bankom, a onda je medijima tamo zabranjeno da objave priču. Umesto toga, oni su objavili vašu stranu. Napravili su od Vas bitnog lika na Islandu. Šta se potom desilo?
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.
DžA: Da, znate, to jeste veliki slučaj. Island je prolazio kroz finansijsku krizu. Bio je to najteži udarac na neku zemlju u svetu. Sektor bankarstva im je bio 10 puta veći od bruto domaćeg proizvoda ostatka privrede. U svakom slučaju, objavili smo taj izveštaj u julu prošle godine. Nacionalna televizija je dobila zabranu pet minuta pre emitovanja. Kao na filmu, zabrana je sletela na sto spikera i on je rekao "To se nikada ranije nije desilo. Šta da radimo?" Pa, umesto toga ćemo samo prikazati vebsajt, svo vreme, kao pokrivalicu. I postali smo veoma poznati na Islandu, išli tamo i pričali o tom problemu. U zajednici je postojalo osećanje da to nikada ne sme da se ponovi. Kao rezultat toga, radeći s nekim islandskim političarima i nekim drugim međunarodnim pravnim stručnjacima, sastavili smo novi paket propisa za Island da na neki način postane spoljno utočište za slobodnu štampu, sa najjačom zaštitom novinara na svetu, sa Nobelovom nagradom za slobodu govora. Island je nordijska zemlja, dakle, kao Norveška, u mogućnosti je da utiče na sistem. I pre samo mesec dana, islandski parlament je ovo jednoglasno usvojio.
CA: Wow.
KA: Opa!
(Applause)
(aplauz)
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?
Poslednje pitanje, Džulijane. Kada razmišljate o budućnosti, da li mislite da je verovatnije da će Veliki Brat imati više kontrole, biti tajnovitiji, ili da ćemo mi posmatrati Velikog Brata ili je moguć bilo koji ishod?
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.
DžA: Nisam siguran kojim putem će ići. Mislim, postoje veliki pritisci da se širom sveta usklade regulative oko slobode govora i transparentnosti - u okviru Ujedinjenih Nacija, između Kine i Sjedinjenih Država. Kojim putem će ići? Teško je predvideti. Zato je ovo veoma interesantno vreme za život. Jer uz pomoć samo malo napora možemo tok usmeriti na bilo koju stranu.
CA: Well, it looks like I'm reflecting the audience's opinion to say, Julian, be careful, and all power to you.
KA: Pa, čini mi se da odražavam mišljenje publike kada kažem, Džulijane, budite oprezni, i neka je moć na vašoj strani.
JA: Thank you, Chris. (CA: Thank you.)
DžA: Hvala, Kris. (KA: Hvala Vama.)
(Applause)
(aplauz)