In February 2010, they received a shocking video of an army helicopter in Iraq attacking civilians. Julian saw the need to leverage this in order to attract attention to the company. A video always says more than a report with hundreds of pages. He complained that citizens didn't willfully read leaks, dreaming of Impact Maximization (taken from a slide of the 26C3 presentation). He now had the means to carry out that kind of impact. He recruited a team of communication and video experts as well as video and sound editors for a real media project. They produced the doc.u.mentary Collateral Murder that had Julian facing the world.

Daniel was moderately involved. Tired of traveling the world, he took on his role as spokesperson by giving interviews to newspapers, mainly German ones. He also had to deal with stopping the site for lack of cash, which was tough for him. It was a maneuver aimed at shaking up public opinion to motivate fundraising that also hid a more pressing reality. The site's infrastructure with its multiple mirror installations needed to be reviewed to switch to a more industrial model, which required investments and resources. As an engineer and technician who worked to save failing IT projects, he wanted this to be a priority. Unfortunately, the attention was diverted to Project B and the planetary launch of this video, as nothing else mattered to Julian.

The divorce was announced. Daniel showed up alone on April 22, at re:publica 2010, a German congress on new media. He started his presentation by announcing Julian's absence, 'our public representative,' who was still in the United States after a press conference he had given.

What was going through Daniel's mind at the time? His role was to answer to press, to represent the organization and be a spokesperson. Now he found himself in the speaker's role. While Julian took on the public mask of the organization, as people talked as much about the captivating, mysterious and magnetic man as the organization, Daniel has always wanted to disappear behind the project, keep a discrete att.i.tude and a pragmatic discourse as to not attract attention and only be a voice for the team.

His presentation that day was quick and quite monotonous. Daniel stated the list of major leaks of the last six months in front of an attentive yet a lot less playful audience than at a C3. He surprised himself having finished his presentation in thirty-five minutes. The applause was still warm and the Q&A session lasted almost fifteen minutes, allowing him to come back to the infrastructure problems that were obviously bothering him. He was also heckled about the video and questioned about the fine line between publishing raw sources and a less objective editorial line of the information. Someone grabbed the microphone and shouted, "You're hidding!"

Daniel stayed calm, but his eyes opened wide, his breath was short, and he answered: "No, the names are clearly in there [in the video]. And again, what I said before, I think it was from my personal perspective, I think it was suboptimal that this line was not drawn clearly enough. That there's WikiLeaks who is publishing an unedited raw video and that there is a journalist piece, which is Collateral Murder."

He left the stage thanking the audience and saying: "Have a nice rest of re:publica. I hope there's more important stuff to hear about."

Daniel appeared at this conference in a different state of mind than usual. He felt like things were slipping away, and that reality was going to be even crueler.

In April 2010, the organization had never had so much media coverage, as the press was all over them. Questions came in from everywhere, and they had to avoid taking attacks and smoking theories about links with secret services too seriously. Daniel continued to answer as the spokesperson.

They were receiving almost twenty-five doc.u.ment submissions a day, but in February they received, along with the video and a set of American doc.u.ments, such a huge quant.i.ty of explosive information that there wasn't enough time to go through it all.

Julian knew that they had to profit from the energy of the video to bring WikiLeaks to the level he aspired to. He decided to put aside all other doc.u.ments they had received. They had to focus on the American leaks and edit the Afghanistan War Logs, known simply as the War Logs. The a.s.sociates produced it while bottling up their frustrations because n.o.body had time to argue.

It was a huge amount of work: review a database of 92,000 doc.u.ments while trying to remove the names of Afghan informers and collaborators who worked with the US armed forces during the period covered by these notes from 2004 to 2009. The entire world was working on it, volunteers and a.s.sociates alike.

In June 2010, they found out about the arrest of the alleged source of the February delivery. His name was Bradley Manning, a young soldier of the US armed forces posted in Iraq. The shock was big, it was the first time that a source was identified and arrested. Daniel was reminded of Julian's words during the 25C3, the one that had got him so much applause: "We have never had a source exposed. We have never had a source prosecuted."

The Afghanistan War Logs finally came out on July 25. They hadn't been able to a.n.a.lyze all the doc.u.ments and 15,000 were left aside for subsequent publication. The information was immediately picked up by major names of the international press such as The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel. Daniel shared with Julian the idea that it was necessary to call upon the traditional press for a better coverage of their actions. However, Julian was furious when he saw that The New York Times hadn't inserted a link to the source of the information. Daniel wasn't surprised; it was actually the system that they wanted to automate in the future on the platform, a content management method called 'syndication.'

The tension started to rise in the ranks of WikiLeaks following criticism from organizations like Reporters Without Borders and even the Pentagon. They left a few names in the doc.u.ments, putting the lives of the people mentioned in danger. The team was on edge. Everything was happening so quickly.

Daniel thought that he had to take some distance. Review the infrastructure, consolidate the organization, work on the communication of financing and publish local information.

Julian was less and less present. He was often in London, partic.i.p.ating in conferences, round table discussions, and television shows. He appeared alone at TED, a program of conferences broadcast in video on the Internet. His appearance had changed, his hair was cut and he wore a quality gray suit.

The summer of 2010 was decisive for WikiLeaks. In August when Julian was accused of having allegedly raped two women in Sweden, the team panicked. What impact would that have on WikiLeaks? He had just started bringing the project up to an international level for a larger audience when these accusations were confirmed. Daniel contained the press. Some journalists had already forgotten this spokesperson. Karl Ritter of the a.s.sociated Press introduced him as "A WikiLeaks spokesperson that says he goes by the name of Daniel Schmitt in order to protect his ident.i.ty." Daniel declared that these were "[E]xtremely serious allegations." He said that he didn't know where Julian was and, "that he's smart enough to know what he has to do."

But Daniel had had enough. The 15,000 Afghanistan War Logs were ready, but Julian didn't want to publish them. Why? n.o.body knew. He had also just found out that Julian negotiated a publishing date for the Iraq War Logs they had been preparing for several weeks, but then again, he didn't know anything more about it. He thought that it was time Julian stayed out of the spotlight and managed his personal affairs.

A Newsweek article dated August 26, 2010 got Julian extremely angry. This article quoted 'Someone close to WikiLeaks' who declared that a certain number of collaborators were worried about the defense Julian used when speaking of defamation and conspiracy against him without justification. These same collaborators thought about how to persuade him to step away from the movement during the Swedish affair.

Julian contacted Daniel electronically. Wired magazine got a hold of the details of the discussion, and even if Daniel Domscheit-Berg denied giving this doc.u.ment to the magazine, he confirmed the content of the following discussion: Daniel: What are the agreements re Iraq? I need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are.

Julian answered with a copy of the transcript in Newsweek: Julian: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that a.s.sange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already brainstorming whether there might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him."

Daniel: What does that have to do with me? And where is this from?

Julian: Why do you think it has something to do with you?

Daniel: Probably because you allege this was me Daniel: As discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about Daniel: You should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you Julian: Was this you?

Daniel: I didn't speak to Newsweek or other media representatives about this Daniel: I spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project Daniel: And there is nothing wrong about this Daniel: It'd actually be needed much more, and I can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns Julian: Who have you spoken to about this issue?

Daniel: I already told you up there Julian: Those are the only persons?

Daniel: some folks from the club [CCC] have asked me about it and I have issued that I think this would be the best behaviour Daniel: That's my opinion Daniel: Face the fact that you have not much trust on the inside anymore Daniel: And that just denying it or putting it away as a campaign against you will not change that it is solely a consequence of your actions Daniel: And not mine Daniel: I don't even wanna think about how many people that used to respect you told me that they feel disappointed by your reactions Daniel: I tried to tell you all this, but in all your hybris you don't even care Daniel: So I don't care anymore either Daniel: Other than that, I had questions first, and I need answers Daniel: Like what agreements we have made Daniel: I need to understand this so we can continue working Daniel: You keep stalling other people's work Julian: How many people are represented by these private chats? And what are there positions in the CCC?

Daniel: Start answering my questions, Julian Julian: Are you refusing to answer?

Daniel: I have already told you again that I don't see why I should answer to you anymore just because you want answers, but on the same hand refuse to answer anything I am asking Daniel: I am not a dog you can contain the way you want to Julian Julian: I am investigation a serious security breach. Are you refusing to answer?

Daniel: I am investigating a serious breach in trust. Are you refusing to answer Julian: No you are not. I initiated this conversation. Answer the question please.

Daniel: Don't play games with me.

Daniel: Likewise, and that doesn't go just for me Julian: If you do not answer the question, you will be removed.

Daniel: You are not anyone's king or G.o.d Daniel: And you're not even fulfilling your role as a leader right now Daniel: A leader communicates and cultivates trust in himself Daniel: or are doing the exact opposite Daniel: You behave like some kind of emperor or slave trader Julian: You are suspended for one month, effective immediately Daniel: Haha Daniel: Right, because of what?

Daniel: And who even says that?

Daniel: You? Another adhoc decision?

Julian: If you wish to appeal, you will be heard on Tuesday The appeal was never heard, and Daniel resigned the following Sat.u.r.day, sending shock waves through WikiLeaks.

Julian announced that he had agreed with the press to publish the Iraq War Logs at the end of October. They weren't ready and didn't want to have the same response as before.

Herbert Snorrason, a twenty-five-year-old Icelandic student who partic.i.p.ated in the security of WikiLeak's chat room for the volunteers, reacted harshly: "The release date which was established was completely unrealistic. We found out that the level of editing done on the Afghanistan doc.u.ments was not sufficient. I announced that if the next batch did not receive full attention, I would not be willing to cooperate." His request made it to Julian who answered: "I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier and all the rest. If you have a problem with me, p.i.s.s off."

Herbert Snorrason p.i.s.sed off. He told wired.com: "I believe that Julian has in fact pushed the capable people away. His behavior is not of the sort that will keep independent-minded people interested."

Daniel gave a very quick interview to Der Spiegel and commented: "We grew insanely fast in recent months and we urgently need to become more professional and transparent in all areas. This development is being blocked internally. It is no longer clear even to me who is actually making decisions and who is answerable to them. I have tried again and again to push for that, but Julian a.s.sange reacted to any criticism with the allegation that I was disobedient to him and disloyal to the project. He suspended me acting as the prosecutor, judge and hangman in one person. Since then, for example, I have had no access to my WikiLeaks mail. So a lot of work is just sitting and other helpers are being blocked. I know that no one in our core team agreed with the move. But that doesn't seem to matter. WikiLeaks has a structural problem. I no longer want to take responsibility for it, and that's why I am leaving the project."

What WikiLeaks was going through was typical of young start-up companies that grow quickly. The founder originally surrounded himself with skilled and committed lieutenants generally chosen from his inner circle. Then, when there were enough resources, the young creator started expanding the business to meet new people, present his company's results and make promises, convinced of his success and already picturing himself at the head of a multinational in five years. At that moment, he had less time to talk to his team left behind to handle productive tasks and surrounded himself with people who would make him several proposals. It was at that point that there was a break, when the creator realized that he had moved to the next level, beyond his original collaborators. He couldn't explain everything to them, they wouldn't understand and he had to surround himself with new, more competent people to climb even higher. He was embarra.s.sed, but that was what he wanted. He respected his lieutenants, he had shared so much with them, they were his friends, but he had to make some major decisions. It was for the good of the company he told himself. It was often for the good of his ego as well. And his friendships started to fray ever so slightly that he didn't even notice it. However, at the first sign of internal crisis, he responded very violently, the words and images of his advisors began to flood back, they were right, he couldn't continue on with these people, and it was without blinking that he ejected them to continue onward with people that fed his ambition.

For the lieutenant it was incomprehension, then trying to remain confident, but arriving at inevitable situations that pushed him into a crisis. And it was a major shock, he kind of expected it, but didn't want to believe it could happen. He couldn't be mad at his old friend because they shared so much together. If it were up to him, he would have probably done the same thing. He also had an entrepreneurial spirit, but never had the courage to start up a business. He kind of envied him. He realized that he was a follower and that now it was time to muster up some courage and become a creator.

Julian declared in August: "I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing b.a.s.t.a.r.ds."

That was Daniel's wake up call. It was time to move into the spotlight. He was now known as Daniel Domscheit-Berg, his real name, and he was also creating on a large scale.

In December, he was approached to write his book, just like Julian was. Two men led WikiLeaks, now two men would wage a war for transparence, both at the same level.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg's project was simple: creating a system in sync with his own convictions and ideas called OpenLeaks.

It had the same initial promise: allowing anonymous whistleblowers to submit sensitive information to the media by guaranteeing them total security from one end of the chain to the other.

As an ideal organization, he already had ten people helping him, including Herbert Snorrason and a few other WikiLeaks dissidents and CCC supporters. The tasks weren't segmented, everyone had their place: "We are a foundation, registered as such in Germany, not an underground organization. This means that we have no political agenda, we have no motives to hide, and we build our tools in order to be able to control it. We must maintain control while remaining neutral."

The concept was an evolution of WikiLeaks. The engineer was able to think while Julian was mixing politics and communications. He kept saying he was a technician. His mission was to offer an efficient solution so that truth warriors could battle. He was an intermediary, a facilitator and a partner. It was a collective action for the collectivity: "We want to allow trade unions, NGOs and media to work together and allow them to embed their own version of OpenLeaks, a kind of Privacybox [mail drop box] with advanced features. The use is free of charge, but we have different approaches and models. If you're a major newspaper, you can choose a dedicated system designed to meet your specific needs, in case you need a greater computing power for instance. In all cases, you have two accesses, one reserved for you and one that allows you to access the network of collaborators."

When WikiLeaks' French technology partner questioned him, he said: "At OWNI [French media group], for example, you follow diligently HADOPI [French creation and Interne law] or ACTA [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement]. From our side, we have interesting doc.u.ments on this subject, submitted by an informant who believes you are best placed to investigate. The informant may choose to give you private access to doc.u.ments for two weeks for example after which you decide whether to publish the doc.u.ments in question."

His approach was open-source because he wanted an open organization. He accepted all partners and WikiLeaks could even become one of them. There was no compet.i.tion in his world. In fact, he was not mad at Julian: "Julian is a really brilliant person and he has a lot of very, very special talents. We've always [thrived by] a diversity of qualities that different people bring in... That works as long as you're working in a team. But whenever you lose that spirit, then one of the qualities just becomes too dominant in some ways-such as taking solitary decisions and thinking that you're in a position to do that. We have to stand together on the important issues that concerns everyone one of us on the planet and the quality of all our lives."

Like his alter ego, Daniel Domscheit-Berg quoted Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his speech while accepting the n.o.bel Prize in 1970: "Rescue of humankind is possible if everything is everyone's business. That's what the real information society is."

23.

DAVID AGAINST GOLIATH.

"Now, in many respects, information has never been so free. There are more ways to spread more ideas to more people than at any other moment in history. And even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable."

These words reflect the idea defended by Julian a.s.sange: information for all and an improvement of governance. They are taken from a speech given by Hillary Clinton on January 21, 2010 at the Newseum, an interactive museum of news and journalism in Washington. With force and conviction, she expressed the importance of new technologies for the freedom of the people. As a representative of the homeland of freedom, she warned that, "Technologies, with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency, can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights." She then quoted President Barack Obama during his trip to China. He said that the more freely information flows, the stronger a society becomes. He spoke about "how access to information could help citizens hold their own governments accountable, generate new ideas, encourage creativity and entrepreneurship. The United States believes in that fundamental truth." America the great intends to promote freedom thanks to the Internet. What a marvelous speech.

During his campaign, Barack Obama promised to return the 'Freedom of Information Act' (FOIA) to its former glory. This 1966 law was founded on the principle of the freedom of information and obliges federal agencies to provide their doc.u.ments to anyone who asks for them. Throughout the history of the United States, this free access has been subjected to various restrictions. The future president promised to repress the secrecy cult protected by his predecessor George W. Bush. When he became president, Barack Obama asked the Minister of Justice to publish new directives for the government and apply principles of openness and transparency to the procedures for requesting access to government doc.u.ments. His memorandum read as follows: "A democracy needs responsibility, and responsibility needs transparency." But transparency and its application have not been seen the same way behind the scenes of power as they have been elsewhere. Today some adversaries say that the Obama government has been hiding more secrets than his predecessors ever did.

On November 28 2010, WikiLeaks exposed the conversations between Hillary Clinton and American diplomats from around the world to the light of day. Suspicions concerning employees of the Department of State spying on other diplomats had already been expressed, but by publishing the American diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks had written irrefutable proof forcing the government to explain itself publicly.

A dispatch from April 2009 signed by Hillary Clinton demanded that state department officials collect the biometric data, fingerprints, ID picture, DNA and retinal scans of African leaders.

Another dispatch from July 2009 ordered American diplomats, including those posted at the United Nations to obtain the pa.s.swords, personal encryption keys, credit card numbers, frequent flyer mile account numbers, as well as other data linked to diplomats.

With the help of their emba.s.sies these cables show that the United States can weave a web that is separate from the country's usual espionage network.

According to international treaties, the United Nations are not supposed to harbor spies, but these revelations show that the United States have been secretly ignoring those rules. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department specifically targeted officials and diplomats of the United Nations, including Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the permanent members of the Security Council from China, Russia, France and United Kingdom, as revealed in the secret dispatch from July 2009.

The UN spokesperson denounced this major diplomatic breach. Hillary Clinton diverted attention by getting angry. She said the online posting of confidential doc.u.ments by WikiLeaks was 'illegal' and promised that the authors of the leaks would be prosecuted. She confirmed that the organization was sabotaging the pacific relations between nations, and endangering individuals.

The notion of transparency is relative. The vice is growing tighter around Julian. Comments from journalists and politicians were unleashed: Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska at the time, compared him to an Al-Qaeda terrorist and called on the American government to hunt him down.

Political commentator Bob Beckel declared on FoxNews (one of the country's most popular network): "A dead man can't leak stuff! This guy's a traitor, he's treasonous, and he has broken every law of the United States. And I'm not for the death penalty, so there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a b.i.t.c.h."

Republican Peter King, Chairman-elect of the Committee on Homeland Security, called on Mrs. Clinton to declare WikiLeaks a foreign terrorist organization and a.s.serted that appropriate governmental measures be taken.

Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999, said on FoxNews: "The WikiLeaks guy should be in jail for the rest of his life. He is an enemy of the United States, endangering people, and he will get folks killed. I think that's a despicable act and we should treat him as enemy combatant and enemy of the United States."

These comments had an impressive echo around the world as well as on the Internet.

Articles concerning WikiLeaks and especially Julian a.s.sange appear every day on the Internet. Journalists were discovering a mysterious and charming stranger who, in the s.p.a.ce of a few months, has become one of the most influential people on the planet. After publishing the diplomatic memos, China blocked access to WikiLeaks, while the American government suggested students not talk about it on their blogs and forbade the Air Force to read websites of newspapers affiliated with WikiLeaks.

"a.s.sange implied that the diplomatic cables would reveal a bunch of secrets and could destabilize states, specifically the United States, claiming that they demonstrate a profound gap between the United States' public persona and what is said behind closed doors. In the end, they show that U.S. diplomats pursue pretty much the same goals in private as they do in public, albeit using more caustic language," said Anne Applebaum, according her a.n.a.lysis in Slate.

American Defense Secretary Robert Gates evaluated the importance of having published these doc.u.ments a lot more moderately: "Now, I've heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is that governments deal with the United States because it's in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments some governments deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. Is this embarra.s.sing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

Despite Robert Gates' point of view, most American politicians remain divided on WikiLeaks and on its main representative, Julian a.s.sange.

The Department of Justice announced that it would study possible prosecution according to the Espionage Act of 1917, considering WikiLeaks as a kind of terrorist cyber organization. This is a Draconian law adopted shortly after Word War I, which punishes people who spread prejudicial information about the security of the United States by death or lengthy imprisonment. They can only prosecute the sources that worked in bad conscience, having leaked information to the organization in the name of public interest at the risk of being accused of treason.

Government lawyers have been asked to be creative in searching for legal options for Julian a.s.sange and his organization. The investigation of the Ministry of Justice is tedious, because legally speaking WikiLeaks cannot be differentiated from other online news organizations, making Julian the same as any other journalist.

Searching for sources of information is the main goal of journalism, along with inciting said sources to deliver their secrets so they can be published.

The goal of the American government is to uncover evidence that Julian a.s.sange has 'conspired,' to quote Vice President Joe Biden. The goal is to effectively link the founder of WikiLeaks to Bradley Manning, the young soldier suspected of leaking confidential military doc.u.ments to the organization. This would allow prosecutors to charge Julian a.s.sange for conspiracy. The American administration would have the possibility of accusing him for breaching national security without bringing his journalist status protected by the First Amendment into it.

The Vice President was enraged that Julian compromised the lives of people while they were doing their jobs and even more so that he aggravated relations between the United States and its allies.

When questioned about this by El Pais, the founder of WikiLeaks simply said that Joe Biden a.s.sociated truth about the United States to terrorism. He then turned the accusation against Biden's administration arguing that if the use of violence for political ends is considered terrorism, then the political and violent scandal against WikiLeaks and the press could also be akin to terrorism.

In December 2010, the United States was still searching for a way to prosecute Julian now labeled a 'cyber terrorist.' Nevertheless, it is becoming more and more difficult to link Julian to any illegal activity, but a threat is looming over the heads of main figures of the American government.

In her speech on January 21, 2010 Hillary Clinton said: "Governments and citizens must have confidence that the networks at the core of their national security and economic prosperity are safe and resilient. This is more than petty hackers who deface websites. [...] We have to take steps as a government and as a department to find diplomatic solutions to strengthen global cyber security."

It takes outlaws to reinforce security and Julian could very well be evidence of the nation's insecurity, which would allow the United States to monitor the exchange of information on the Internet and ultimately reduce world communication among Internet users.

Regardless of the comments made to the press, it's interesting to see that ten days after divulging the diplomatic doc.u.ments, many American and European politicians tried to exert pressure on the Internet service providers that had WikiLeaks as a client. For those who already mistrust governments, this action is more than worrisome.

A discriminatory campaign against WikiLeaks and Julian a.s.sange incites them to radicalize either toward a type of aggressive rebellion like attacking increasingly digital public structures, which has consequences on the world economy, or by joining a public group fighting for free Internet. Such a political movement already exists under the flag of the Pirate Party. In fact, many cells are active in Europe, advocating freedom on the Internet and relaxing copyright law.

24.

POLITICAL SUPPORT.

Interview in the chambers of the Swedish Pirate Party at the European Parliament with Christian Engstrom, Parliamentarian of the Pirate Party and his a.s.sistant, Henrik Alexandersson.

elise: First I would like to talk about the party. What's the story? How did it start?

Christian: The Pirate Party was founded on January 1, 2006 by Rick Falkvinge in Sweden. At that time, Rick Falkvinge was just an IT manager working at a company, actually owned by Microsoft, basically a regular IT guy. He sort of, half as a joke and half seriously, put up a web page saying, 'I've had enough. I'm starting the Pirate Party.' Within forty-eight hours, his webpage got three million hits.

Henrik: It went viral around the world.

Christian: And then he thought that, 'OK, I'm probably onto something,' and he also thought, 'Now I have the chance to try and do something, to make the world a better place. If I don't take it now, I can't complain afterwards.' The goal was then exactly what the party is now: defend freedom on the Internet. We had general elections in September the same year. It was quite hectic to get everything organized, but we did take part in those elections and we got 0.6 per cent of the vote. In the next EU elections we got seven per cent of the national vote in Sweden, which is how I ended up here.

Henrik: And it's very important for members of Parliament to have someone to talk to, because earlier on it was just telecoms or record company lobbyists. Now there is someone in the building that they can talk to when it comes to copyright reform, etc. We have answers to suggest for many of the questions that will arise concerning the future. We're also among those who incite new ideas.

Christian: Many of the issues we work with are directly related to WikiLeaks. For instance, in many situations or proposals, or today in the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement), we have concerns that Internet providers will have secondary liability. That means they could one day be responsible for the content of the traffic on their lines... As a comparison, the Post Office is not responsible for whatever you send through the mail.

Henrik: But there are strong powers trying to change that, which would lead to all Internet service providers to check what traffic goes through their infrastructure so they don't get sued. In a situation like that, for instance, a site like WikiLeaks would be stopped immediately because Internet service providers don't want to have to deal with these problems.