Category: civil liberties

11-02-2014, the day we fight back

Today is the 11th of Februrari 2014,“The Day We Fight Back”. We fight against out-of-control spying on our privacy as free citizens. We fight against Orwellian espionage because we know where it leads to in the end.

The text below is inspired by the speeches of Winston Churchill in during may and june 1940. While the nature of the opponents of democracy and freedom is different today the consequences of losing the fight are just as dire. Our society and the planetary eco-system is a great trouble. We need our democracies to function and our internet to be free so we can adress the great challenges of out time.

“What Cory Doctorow and Aaron Schwartz called the fight against SOPA & ACTA is over. The battle against TTP and global surveillance continues to rage on. Upon this battle depends the survival of the internet and our democracies. Upon it depends our own way of life and the long continuity of our institutions and our culture. Once again the whole fury and might of the enemies of freedom will very soon be turned on us now.

Those working towards a police state know that they will have to break us or lose this conflict. If we can stand up to them, all of the Internet may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States and Europe, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new corporatist Dark Age, made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted technologies.

You ask, what is our policy? We can say: It is to hack, by server, laptop and phone, with all our might and with all the strength that Turing can give us; to wage lulz against a monstrous tyranny, rarely surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: victory, victory at all cost, victory in spite of all the terror, corruption and lies.

I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, if nothing is neglected, and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made, we shall prove ourselves once more able to defend our networked homes. To ride out the storm of surveilance, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone. At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of the hacktivists – every one of them. That is the will of free citizens, the technologists and the creatives, linked together in their cause and in their need, will defend their native internet, aiding each other like good comrades to the utmost of their strength. Victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there will be no free culture and no culture of freedom.

Therefore we shall go on to the end:
we shall fight in Europe,
we shall fight on our browsers and our operating systems,
we shall fight with stronger encryption, and secure hardware,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength
we shall defend our networks, whatever the cost may be,

We shall never surrender.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the Internet and its hacker community last for a thousand years, they will still say, “This was their finest hour”.”

No go participate or organise a cryptoparty, support people developing better tools (mail, web, secure systems and all this Free-as-in-freedom Software) or ask other people if they value being able to read without being read at the same time. Privacy is a human right according to the UN Declaration of human rights and yes, you to have something to hide as well.

---

The missed opportunity of avoiding PRISM

<originally a column for Consortium News>

On July 11th 2001 the European Parliament published a report on the Echelon spy network and the implications for European citizens and businesses. Speculations about the existence of this network of Great Britain-and-her-former-colonies had been going on for years but it took until 1999 for a journalist to publish a report that moved the subject out of the tinfoil-hat- zone. The report of the EU Parliament contains very practical and sensible proposals, but because of events two months later across the Atlantic, they have never been implemented. Or even discussed further.

Under the heading “Measures to encourage self-protection by citizens and enterprises” lists several concrete proposals for improving data security and confidentiality of communications for EU citizens. The document calls on Parliament to inform citizens about the existence of Echelon and the implications for their privacy. This information must be “accompanied by practical assistance in designing and implementing comprehensive protection measures, including the security of information technology“.

Other gems are the requests to “take appropriate measures to promote, develop and manufacture European encryption technology and software and, above all, to support projects aimed at developing user encryption technology, which are open-source” and “promote software projects whose source text is published, thereby guaranteeing that the software has no “back doors” built in (the so-called “open source software”)”. The document also mentions explicitly the unreliability of security and encryption technologies whose source code is not published. This is an issue that is a strict taboo in Dutch and UK discussions on IT strategy for governments (probably because certain major NATO partners might be offended).

Also, governments must set a good example to each other and their citizens by “systematic use of encryption of e-mails, so that in the longer term this will be normal practice.” This should in practice be realised by “ensuring the training and publication of their staff with new encryption technologies and techniques by means of the necessary practical training and courses.” Even candidate countries of the EU should be helped “if they cannot provide the necessary protection by a lack of technological independence“.

That one paragraph from the summer of 2001, when rational security policies had not yet been completely destroyed by 9/11, describes the basis for a solid IT policy that ensures security and privacy of citizens against threats from both foreign actors and the government itself (historically always the greatest threat to its citizens and the reason why we have constitutions).

Had these policies been implemented over the last decade then the PRISM revelations of the last week would have been met mostly with indifference. European citizens, governments and companies would be performing most of their computing and communications on systems controlled by European organisations, running software co-developed in Europe and physically located on European soil. An American problem with an overreaching spy apparatus would have been just that, an American problem – like teenagers with machine guns or lack of universal healthcare, just one more of those crazy things they do in the colonies to have ‘freedom’.

From the proprietary frying pan into the cloudy fire
Over eleven years ago, I was talking to Kees Vendrik (Dutch MP) about the broken European software market. Not only was it impossible to buy a brand laptop without having to buy a Microsoft Windows licence, it was also impossible to visit many websites (municipalities, railways and many others) without using Internet Explorer. The latter area has greatly improved and I can today lead my life using my OS and browsers of choice. The Dutch dependence on products such as MS Windows/Office has not really diminished however, despite all the wishes expressed by Parliament and attempts at government policies. Today it is not possible to finish secondary school as a student without owning and using several pieces of proprietary software. Imagine making a certain brand of pen mandatory for schools and picking a brand of pen that comes with a spying microphone (not under control of the user). That is the current situation in practical terms in the Netherlands and UK amongst others. Germany, France and Spain are doing slightly better by at least acknowledging the problem.

Meanwhile, the technological seismic shift that frightened Bill Gates so much back in ’95 (the web makes the operating system irrelevant) is fast becoming reality. Almost all new developments discussed by IT power players and specialists are web-based or based on open specifications and the most commonly used applications are running quite well as service in a browser.

So while the 15-20 year old problem of software dependency has never really been resolved (governments, with tens of thousands of IT workers, are still unable to wean itself off the familiar Microsoft technology stack), its impact is slowly becoming less relevant. Meanwhile, new dependencies based on ‘cloud’ providers are now proven to be even more detrimental.

Excessive use of proprietary software creates the risk of foreign manipulation and potential attacks on critical infrastructure (see Stuxnet). But at least if your systems are attacked in this way, there are some ways to track this. If you are working on the computer that does not belong to you, that is based in a foreign country and is managed by people you don’t know in ways you cannot check, it will be very difficult to have any control over what happens to your data.

The old assumption, that using local servers could be part of the solution, seems unfortunately to be an illusion under the post-9/11 Empire. All cloud services offered by companies based in the US are subject to US legislation, even if the servers are physically in another country. And US law is now somewhat, shall we say, problematic. With no evidence, but with an allegation of involvement in “terrorism”, systems can be closed down or taken over – without any warning or the possibility of adversarial judicial review. The term “terrorism” has been stretched so far in that anyone who allegedly breaks US law, even if they’re not a US citizen and even if they’re not in the US can still a deemed “terrorist”, just on the word of one of the many three-letter services (FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, DHS, TSA, etc.). The EU was not happy about this but until the PRISM leak did not want to go so far as recommending its citizens and other governments to no longer use such services. PRISM is making it possible to at least have a serious discussion about this for the first time.

The long arm of the US Patriot Act goes even further than merely the servers of US companies on European soil. Thus domains can be “seized” and labelled: “this site was involved in handling child pornography“. Try explaining that as a business or non-profit organisation to your clients and (business) partners. Just using one .com, .org or .net extension as your domain name now makes you makes you liable under US law. All Europeans can now be seized from their homes for breaking US law. So a .com domain name makes your server effectively US territory.

We were already aware that proprietary platforms like Windows and Google Docs were not suitable systems for important things such as running public or critical infrastructure. However, now it turns out, that every service delivered through a .com / .org / .net domain places you under de facto foreign control.

Solution? As much as possible, change to free/opensource software on local servers. Fortunately there are quite a few competent hosting companies and businesses in Europe. Use local country domains like .nl, .de, .fr or, if you really want to be bullet proof, take a .ch domain. These are managed by a Swiss foundation and these people take their independence seriously. If you still want to use Google (Docs), Facebook, Evernote, Mind Meister, Ning.com, Hotmail or Office 365 – please do so with the awareness that you have no privacy and fewer civil rights than English noblemen had in the year 1215.

Fighting evildoers
A few months ago, a government speaker was defending the ‘Clean IT’ project at a meeting of RIPE (the organization that distributes IP addresses for Europe and Asia). Clean-IT is a European project of Dutch origin which aims to combat the ‘use of the Internet for terrorist purposes’. The problem with this goal is that ‘internet’, ‘use’ and ‘terrorism’ remain undefined, nor does it seem anyone is very interested in sorting this out. This lack of clarity in itself can useful if you are a government because you can then take a project in any direction you like. A bit like when data retention was rammed through the EU parliament in 2005 with the promise that it would be used only against terrorism – a promise that was broken within a few months. In Germany, data retention has now been declared unconstitutional and been abolished, while the Netherlands has rampant phone tapping, despite a total lack of evidence of the effectiveness of these measures. That all the databases of retained telecommunications data themselves become a target is not something that seems seriously to be taken into account in the threat analyses. All rather worrying for a government that is still usually unable to secure its own systems properly or ensure that external contractors do so.

Also, during the lecture on Clean-IT much emphasis was placed on the public-private partnership to reassure the audience. It’s strange that a government first makes itself incompetent by outsourcing all expertise, then it comes back after ten years and claims it cannot control those same companies, nor indeed their sub-contractors. The last step is then to outsource the oversight function to companies as well and reassurance the citizens: “We let companies do it! Don’t you worry that we would do any of the difficult technical stuff for ourselves, it’s all been properly outsourced to the same parties that messed up the previous 25 projects”.

Terrorism is obviously the access all areas pass – despite the fact that many more Europeans die slipping in the shower or from ill-fitting moped helmets than from terrorism. Moreover, we as Europeans have experience of dealing with terrorism. ETA, IRA and RAF were rendered harmless in previous decades by police investigations, negotiations and encapsulation. This was done without jeopardizing the civic rights of half a billion European citizens. Even when IRA bombs were regularly exploding in London nobody suggested dropping white phosphorous on Dublin or Belfast.

I hope that the pre-9/11 vision of the EU Parliament will be rediscovered at some point. It would be nice if some parts of the ‘Free West’ could develop a policy that would justify our moral superiority towards Russia, when we demand that they stop political censorship under the guise of “security”.

Backup plan: DIY
If all else fails (and this is not entirely unlikely) we need a backup plan for citizens. Because despite all petitions, motions, actions and other initiatives our civil liberties are still rapidly diminishing. Somehow a slow-motion corporate coup has occurred where the government wants to increase “efficiency” by relying on lots of MBA-speak and corporate management wisdoms that worked so well for the banking sector. The fact that the government’s primary function thereby evaporates does not seem to bother most civil servants. And meanwhile the companies themselves are apparently too busy making profits and fighting each other to worry about civil rights and other archaic concepts from the second half of the 20th century.

So rather than always trying to influence a political system that so very clearly ignores our interests, we can simply take care of ourselves and each other directly. This conclusion may not be pleasant, but it gives clarity to what we have to do.

One good example would be to have educational and civil liberties organisations providing weekly workshops to citizens on how to install and use encryption software to regain some privacy. These organisations should use their clout to get the slogan of “crypto is cool” on everyone’s lips. Technologists and designers should focus their energies on promoting the hip and user-friendly aspects of these pieces of software. This may be a lot more fun than lobbying ossified political institutions and actually provide some concrete privacy results.

Since 2006 I have ensured my own email privacy by no longer relying on the law, but by using a server outside the EU, SSL connection to it through a VPN tunnel entering the open Internet also outside the EU. I encrypt as many emails as possible individually with strong crypto (using Free GPG software). The fact that all those hordes of terrorists (who, our government asserts, are swamping the planet) have no doubt also adopted such measures – for less than 20 Euros a month – makes most of the low-level spying a complete and pointless waste of resources. Assuming the point truly is fighting ‘terrorism’ – something that is becoming a bit doubtful in light of the above.

Despite what some of the ‘but I have nothing to hide’ apologists say we have privacy rights and other civil liberties for the same reason we have a constitution. Not for situations were everything is OK but for those rare situations where things are not OK. Privacy is the last line of defence against governments who lose sight of their reason for existing (to serve their people). Privacy is therefore not the enemy of security but the most basic part of it. Because governments are much scarier than any would-be cyber-criminal or even terrorists. Criminals may steal some money and terrorists may kill a few people but when it comes to wars, mass repression or genocide you always need a government.

It is very obvious what European governments should be doing to promote the safety and security of their citizens and states. They already wrote it down in the summer of 2001. The fact that these measures are never part of any current ‘cybersecurity’ policy proposals should make people very suspicious, at least of their governments’ competence.

The above article was originaly written for and published on Consortium News. On June 22nd I was interviewed by Chuck Mertz from ‘This is Hell!’ radio (Chicago, WNUR 89.3 FM). The entire program of that morning is on the This Is Hell! site. My interview (all 52 minutes of it) is here.

---

OHM and other Three-Letter-Agencies

<originally a column for OHM2013.org – also on HuffPo UK>

“Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it.” – Mahatma Gandhi

This summer the Dutch hacker community, with help from friends all over the world, will organise the seventh hacker festival in a series that started in 1989 with the Galactic Hacker Party. The world has changed massively since then (we’ll get to that) but the goal of these gatherings remains the same: to share knowledge and ideas about technology and its implications for our world, have heated discussions on what we should do about the problems we see (sometimes well before many others see them), generally have fun in communicating without keyboards, and being excellent to each other.

Four years ago a somewhat unknown Australian hacker with some new ideas about the future of journalism gave the opening keynote at HAR2009. His site was called Wikileaks and some of us had a hunch that this concept might be going places. We had no idea just how far that would be…

Not long after the first gathering in the Netherlands in 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. While we can claim no connection, the interminable Cold War had finally ended and many of us felt, with the optimism so typical of youth, that world peace might just be possible in our lifetimes. We would go back to making rockets that went up instead of straight-and-level and other great things would follow.

Regrettably that was not to be. First the .coms imploded, then three skyscrapers in New York, and soon after that our entire economy turned out to be a sort of multi-level-marketing casino. The 3rd millennium has started with a bang that is still echoing around the planet. Since then we’ve seen the ‘free’ part of the world become rather un-free rather fast. “US Department of Homeland Security relaxing a ban on toenail clippers” would have been be a scary headline for someone in 1993 on several levels. But in 2013 it is just one of those things to which people have sadly become accustomed.

What happened? And is there anything we can do about it? Why not ask some of the people who were insiders with some of those three-letter-agencies-that-many-of-us-fear*, who left and are now speaking out often at great personal risk and cost. Five former insiders from different government organisations will all give talks about their experiences within various secret agencies and provide a historic context to what is happing right now.

The alphabet soup begins with ex-CIA Ray McGovern who is now an outspoken and indefatigable international peace campaigner. Ray will give a broad historic context based on his experiences as an analyst and presidential ‘daily-briefer’ during a career with the CIA that started during the Vietnam war.

Ex-FBI Coleen Rowley will talk about her experience working against organized crime and terrorist organisations at the FBI. She went public over the intelligence-sharing failures that allowed 9/11 to happen, and in 2002 was voted “Time” Person of the Year.

In a more recent case, ex-NSA and natural-born geek Thomas Drake and ex-DoJ Jesselyn Radack will discuss Tom’s whistleblowing case relating to his work for the NSA were he was managing very large information gathering projects. Tom was one of the first victims of the recent US push-back against whistleblowers under the reanimated 1917 US Espionage Act and was threatened with life in prison.

Annie Machon, a former intelligence officer for MI5, will discuss her experience working for UK’s Security Service against terrorist organisations, why she became a whistleblower about the crimes and incompetence of the UK spies, and how all of this relates to current developments both in the Middle East and the shredding of our civil liberties in the West.

To try to make sense of all these insights and figure out what we should do to get out of the mess, the five experts will discuss our options in a special “Spook Panel”, and you can join in. How can we resist, retain privacy and perhaps get back to a world where you can get on a plane without being prodded, scanned and forced to give up dangerous materials like mineral water?

It is easy and understandable to get depressed about the world today, but that doesn’t help. Hackers are people who do things. So join us, share your knowledge, creativity and talents to help figure out what we can do to fix this. New media, crypto, art, networks, music, blogging, fast & clever analysis of news and patient explanations of history & culture. We need it all and much more. And we need everyone to help out because while the freedom to play with tech is vital, the freedom to do so while not being subjected to ‘extraordinary rendition‘, torture, or drone-strikes is even more important.

The summer of 1989 was long, hot and free. Let’s make another one at OHM2013.

*⁾If you don’t fear these agencies you’re either not paying attention or you have a very boring life.

---

Dining with spies

<originally a column for Webwereld – in Dutch – also on HuffPo UK>

At their yearly conference the Dutch The National Cyber ??Security Center stated this week they want to listen more to the hacker community. It is fine that the government will at last listen to the people who have been ahead of the curve for decades, although the question remains – why it has waited to do this until 2013? Even if this had been done as recently as 5 or 10 years ago it would have saved an incredible amount of trouble and public money. I sincerely hope that the consultations with the hack(tivist) community are about more than just technical tricks, because most benefits to society are derived from discussing policy. For purely technical issues the usual consulting companies can always be hired and then simply pay hackers for their knowledge and advice, just like any other experts.

The Real News Network has produced an overview of the event and its broader context. This will remain relevant to understanding current global poliics for a long time.

---

The Declaration of Independence of Internet

<Webwereld column>

(Orginal from 1776 here. Orginal from 1581 that is the inspiration for the original from 1776 here)

hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for people to dissolve the commercial, legal and moral bands which have connected them with an industry and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which their most fundamental principles entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all lives are enriched by the sharing of culture, that citizens are endowed by their democracies with certain unalienable rights, that among these are knowledge, true ownership of their property and the sharing of culture. That to secure these rights, laws are instituted among the people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any of these laws become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish them, and to institute new laws, laying their foundations on such principles and organizing their powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that laws long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such laws, and to provide new guards for their future cultural wealth. Such has been the patient sufferance of the people of the Internet; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of cultural distribution. The history of the present copyright industry is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over the culture of the people of Earth. These are just some of the effects of the lobbying of the copyright-industry:

The destruction of our cultural heritage by forced obliteration and decay, by forbidding or hindering the reduplication and sometimes even the restoration of cultural artifacts. – The destruction of our future, by frustrating education and the sharing of knowledge, thereby condemning many to lower life standards than they could otherwise achieve, especially in developing countries. – The destruction of the creative process, by legally forcing artists and authors to steer clear of any sources of inspiration, and punishing them for accidental similarities and citations. – The destruction of free access to key, contentious pieces of political information by preventing maximum distribution of this information. – The destruction of human and natural resources, by forcing the re-creation of works that would be perfectly usable with some minor rework, but not allowing such re-use. – The destruction of social and economic order, by allowing the control of much of our heritage to end up in just a few hands. Leading to a society where a few have a lot, and a lot have little. – The destruction of innocent lives by transporting citizens of other nations beyond Seas to be tried for offences that are not even offences in their home nations …

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Corporations, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define tyrants, are unfit to be conduit of culture for a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our corporate cultural overlords. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their lobbying to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the limits of our patience and the growing existence of alternatives to their wares. The most recent efforts of the copyright industry to circumvent our most fundamental democratic institutions leaves us no choice but to defend our culture by taking it out of the hands of these corporations.

We, therefore, the Pirates of the World, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of the Internet, solemnly publish and declare, that we are free and united, and no longer recognize the legal or moral validity of the copyright claims of aforementioned corporations, that we are absolved from all legal and moral allegiance to these corporations, and that all connections between the people of the Internet and the copyright industry is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and Independent people, we have full power to download, distribute, remix, broadcast, perform and to do all other acts and things which Independent people may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on strong cryptological protection, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred bandwidth

 

printable version for those ink-based-real-life signing parties here

---

A reasonable discussion

In recent weeks a number of leaked documents has made it crystal clear how a cluster of companies (hereafter referred to as the "copyright industry") warns off any threat to its commercial interests. The copyright industry consists of all those companies whose business models are based on the most extreme neo-liberal interpretation of copyright. In this interpretation, the ability to make money by endlessly re-selling the same piece of intellectual property is considered more important not only than democratic control over the creation of laws, but also than basic civil rights such as the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Where copyright once began in the 18th century with a period of 14 years, in the 19th and 20th centuries it extended to 70 years after the date of death of the author. It is not entirely clear how copyright 70 years after the death of a creative person can encourage more creativity (the original purpose of copyright). There is no evidence that more culture is created by endless renewal and reinforcement of copyright; indeed, there are many indications that it actively blocks both new creativity and the preservation of existing culture.

First there are the now infamous Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement negotiations. ACTA is an international treaty designed to combat the counterfeiting of branded products and other forms of copyright infringement. Although citizens of participating countries must adhere to this treaty on pain of subsequent fines or worse, they had no say in or even oversight of the treaty’s creation. Companies from the copyright industry appear to have had a free hand in developing the content of ACTA. Citizens and their elected representatives were excluded and nobody will say why. That hardly creates trust.

Now, in a report to the US government, it appears that the overarching pro-copyright lobbying organization, the International Intellectual Property Association (IIPA), wants to place a number of countries on a special watch list, because the governments of these countries actively promote the use of open source software. The deployment of open source is apparently comparable to copyright infringement, protectionism and terrorism because it threatens the ability of proprietary software companies to make money. The logic of this is so distorted that you have to read it three times to believe that someone in his/her mind could write this in 2010. How nice that a Dutch caretaker government promoting open source can simultaneously be in the ‘coalition of the willing’ and the ‘axis of evil’.

The whole course of events raises the question of whether we, as citizens, can still have any rational discussion with these interest groups in the hope of reaching a reasonable consensus. A workable balance between different interests requires that both parties follow certain basic rules eg to respect the democratic state. If, as in this case,  lobby groups are so crude as to operate outside the normal frameworks, they leave the other party in the debate no choice but to do the same. That other party is we, the citizens, and we are many. And because we are many, we can innovate more quickly to circumvent any technical or legal barrier. In every public debate on copyright, the burden of proof is always put on citizens who believe that things should be a little less extreme. The copyright industry and its lobbyists have never been to able demonstrate the social utility of the endless tightening of copyright. An industry that desires legal protection for it’s businessmodel, is it not reasonable that it shows society that this protection is of value to society? And if it will not or cannot… why should citizens give credence to the industry and its unilaterally-asserted  ‘rights’?

The copyright industry seems headed for a total war against its own clients, with centuries-old civil rights simply set aside in secret negotiations. Obviously honest citizens will first try to change unreasonable laws through the usual democratic channels. However, if these paths are obviously and actively blocked, then they will fall back to civil disobedience. If that does not help, stronger measures may follow. Fortunately in this case civil disobedience is extremely fun to do; download, upload, copy, share, crack, jailbreak and remix, until to all members of the IIPA either wake up to new realities or go bankrupt.

And then we hold a huge party. With great music of course.

---