R064 - Cyberactivism, with Simona Levi

The Stasi was the intelligence agency and secret police of the GDR, the German Democratic Republic between 1950 and 1990. It became a symbol of state oppression, known for its extensive network of informants and intrusive surveillance program. It was dissolved after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and its archives, which document its activities, were made public, revealing the extent of its intervention in citizens' lives.

What would have happened if the Stasi had access to all the information our states have today? How can we guarantee our privacy as citizens in a fully digitalized world?

Today we talk with Simona Levi, an expert in technopolitics and digital rights. A new Realworld where we explore the territory of regulation, ethics, and the desire to change the world.

R064 - Cyberactivism, with Simona Levi

What is the real world for you?

The real world is the Internet. No, I say it to provoke. And I also say it because someone has to defend the Internet. Because normally, precisely in the real world, when talking about the real world, no one considers the Internet part of the real world. And this creates a disadvantage for the Internet we want, which is really part of our real world. So for me, the real world is, starting with myself, my rational world, my emotional world, then my relationship with others, then the governance of the world, then the private space and the public space, and then the digital space. This part of the real world, when it appeared in my life, really changed it for the better, which is why I think we must start to really consider the personal, public, and digital world as the same world, the real world.

Activism in technology

How can ordinary people engage in activism in technology?

But this must be done in a playful way, because otherwise one becomes bitter. If you don't enter any website that doesn't ask for cookies properly, if you don't enter any course unless... You make your life bitter and hate humanity. But yes, from time to time, when you have a moment, you say no, no, I want the law to be followed or I want this to be explained to me. I do it continuously in my negotiations. I don't do this because this is done this way. And if you have the time and if you do it in a fun way, I think it's fun too, because you see the whole system change around you for a small thing you do, and it gives satisfaction.

It's very good that a law now says "up to here". For example, no emotional profiling in children's education, no emotional profiling to give or not give you a job. All of this, this legislation is saying it, because these were things that were already being done. So, it arrives quite on time and it's good. Now, I don't want us to be just talking, I don't like that we are only criticizing, in the sense that I believe that artificial intelligence, that's a wonder, we must research, we must use it, but if it is with a human touch, it can surely serve us for many things. But there is also a topic, for example, it is said, the other day I read that they said it works in a program, a specific program of a large company that I will not name to avoid legal problems for everyone, which says it worked at 99.96 percent. If we imagine that, for example, they said this about airplanes, that here only 0.04 of airplanes fall.

This would not be very reassuring. So, it shouldn't be for airplanes, nor should it be for us to apply the 0.04% of the time it is possible that you are accused of being a criminal due to an artificial intelligence error. I think we should not accept this just as we do not accept it for airplanes.

Security is often also used as a lever to cut rights.

The Great Hits of the great excuses to cut freedoms are children and security. So, this is super dangerous because both children and security are very cool assets that we really have to protect. I mean, I'm not saying to hell with the children, right? No, but precisely that, whenever there is a terrorist attack it is very easy to then impose. So, I always explain that there are more deaths by democide, that is, when the government itself kills its own population, than by wars. So, we have to protect ourselves from the external enemy, but also from the internal enemy. We must know that our governments can get out of hand precisely because their interests, ours come after theirs. And so, despite the fact that one may feel safer having a surveillance camera in certain places, surely the security issue must be addressed in some other way, but without cutting our freedoms, because one day it affects one, but another day it could affect you.

Auditability of AIs

We also talk about the auditability of artificial intelligences, how the design is reported, how a certain artificial intelligence is made, where the data comes from, what rules artificial intelligences follow. And you defend, you defend, that this auditability must be public and traceable. How far are we from this?

Let's say there's good news. There is an artificial intelligence that has a technical name that I don't remember now, which has such complexity that those who program it... I mean, it's called Black Box in the end. Yes, a black box. Yes, it's a black box because you can't understand how it reaches its conclusions, so you can't publish it, not even the people who work with it. The good news is that it is mainly working on explainable artificial intelligence. So I always say I'm very bad at technology, I mean, I'm not technical, but as a citizen I deal with technology and I always explain that most of the time it can be explained like a cooking recipe. You have the ingredients on one side, which are the data that train the artificial intelligence, and then the recipe. It's exactly the same, it's me with these ingredients I ask for so much, so much time of sautéing, then, and if I do it in another order, I will have another result. And then, these are the procedures you ask for, that you execute with these ingredients. So, the recipe, I say, of the algorithm and the intelligence must be able to be published whenever possible.

Because it is very important for that, to understand if there is bias. In the legislation that is being decided now, there is quite a bit of this, there are gaps, for example, it is requested that it be published in the database if they have copyright, but the others are not mandatory and not all. In some areas yes, in others less. But well, what does it mean? That this issue, which at the beginning was not due to intellectual property problems, which is another great excuse for many things. And data protection too. It's not another that we work with corruption. Many times, "oh, I can't give you this data because of data protection. But how? If they are public data." So, at the beginning of everything it was said, No auditability because we reveal industrial secrets. Now this no longer works. So, even the most conservative legislation says that procedures, databases, etc. must be published. So, in this sense, I think it's good and that it has reacted very quickly, because there were already a whole series of aberrations already underway, because there are many companies that are working on this and that are doing experimentation.

There are more deaths by democide, that is, when the government itself kills its own population, than by wars. We have to protect ourselves from the external enemy, but also from the internal enemy.

It must be said that open software, open repositories, are leveling and doing very well, but atrocities were already being applied, like, I don't know, the emotional control of students to make them happier. But in the meantime, you make an emotional profile, capture emotions and deduce from some emotions. We have seen some of these tools, now that we are in educational fields, and they are real botch jobs. I mean, the ones we have seen are, you know when you install an app that promises, I don't know, to reduce your abs or something, and that in reality are four buttons. Well, the same applied, sold to schools or educational institutions, that with four little buttons, if you scan the whole... You can discover the next one who will suffer bullying and the one who will give it. An absolute disaster, because absolute botch jobs.

How is the legislation regarding technology?

Just today the legislation on artificial intelligence is being discussed in the European Parliament. And just today it is debated and tomorrow it is voted. Well, I think that with the general data protection regulation, which our various governances have made us swallow a bit as a boring, complicated thing, which has complicated our lives, when in reality it is a piece of legislation, it is a beautiful piece of legislation, which is the effort of the entire civil society and in particular the German one that knew the Stasi, the Gestapo, then that understands what it means to have all the capillary information of the entire population. So, I think this legislation, which is the Data Protection Regulation, which is from 2016, and previously the Net Neutrality one, has a bit emboldened, finally, the governance at the European level to effectively, if we use human rights as raw material for legislation, well, we create a framework with less dependence on one side or the other, from the ultra deregulated side, from the hyper-controlled side.

And then, curiously, this artificial intelligence legislation has cost us much less to introduce more human rights elements into the legislation. The data protection regulation is not perfect, but what is really imperfect is the implementation. I mean, you ask me about the legislation. It is being legislated relatively well. There is an effort to do. There are still many problems and erroneous legislations, etc. But well, even the good things, what is the terrible inertia is the inertia of implementation in the mega government infrastructure. From the City Council, the smallest department, to the State... This does not work. I mean, the data protection regulation, which should be a simple thing to have greater privacy, has been transformed into a bureaucratic tool that has not improved us much. And that the last to implement it and that are implementing it worse are the institutions themselves. For example, an example to understand, the famous cookie, which now for a couple of years has been prohibited to put the accept or configure button. The law already says it has to make the same effort to accept and reject.

Well, if you notice, most institutions are still with the accept or configure, while individuals, our consultants, have already warned us that this must be changed. So, the furthest behind in implementing their own laws are our own institutions. And that's where I see that, once again, all roads lead to the same place. So, the legislative issue always has to be fought, but well, we are fighting it. Now, the implementation issue, this is agonizing and you see it in the day to day when you do political action. For example, now we are with the digitalization of education and well, each step is... Sometimes you find a political interlocutor or from the governance infrastructure that does not want. Okay, this is difficult, does not want. But even when you find those who do want and who are convinced and who want to move forward, the machine is obsolete, it is a monster that does not move. And it is not just a machine, it is the people who move the machine. It is a gear that if we do not take the reform very seriously, it is a shame because we are losing many opportunities to really have better societies, much more happiness, much less poverty, many things much better.

I think the problem is more there than in the legislation itself.

What are they going to vote on tomorrow regarding artificial intelligence legislation? Where is the battle being fought at this moment? What is being discussed?

The battle tomorrow will be because they had agreed, even Von der Leyen, who is conservative, agreed, for example, on the prohibition of facial recognition in public spaces. And at the last moment, just today, the PP has brought amendments, which tomorrow we will know if they win or not, to allow facial recognition in public spaces. And this is the battle. This time very clearly the PP, because it was a legislation with a lot of consensus. Curiously, it was a legislation that had started a bit very liberal, ultra-liberal, but in the bad sense.

For example, only based on risks and not so much focused on human rights. We have managed to introduce that the measure was human rights. I mean, what does this mean? It is based on risks. How much risk does this artificial intelligence expose you to? But let's say that the risk measure regarding your fundamental rights has been consolidated very strongly. And so, for this reason, even conservatives who normally defend facial recognition a lot for security reasons, that I want to be conciliatory in the sense, I can understand this concern. But as everyone understands that the famous kick in the door that the fact that the police can enter your house without a judicial warrant, certainly it may prevent some crime for this to occur, certainly, it could be a very useful tool to prevent some crime, but the amount of damage it can do to innocents does not compensate. And so here it was a bit in this same debate. And there was a lot of consensus also from conservatives and it seems that this has changed.

The Greatest Hits of the great excuses to cut freedoms are children and security.

But going back to the governance issue, we return to political parties, because here the big problem is what? That the people who decide really respond to being able to be a candidate again and to be a candidate again you have to respond first of all to the head of the list, who is the one who decides whether to put you or not, and then to all the interests of the people who are the ecosystem of the party to which you respond. So, we understand this very well in a business. We know that the business responds to its interests. Well, political parties are a business, they are small private companies, small or large private companies and then they must respond to their interests as private companies. And if we understand this, we understand that we cannot continue to be governed in this way, because our interest always comes after many other interests. So, that's why sometimes it is unpredictable.

When you say there is no one at the wheel. They are at the wheel, but the road they travel is not that of governance, but it is to keep their particular business afloat. And that's why sometimes the decisions they make are very incongruent and affect the entire citizenry.

Leadership and self-management

I believe in leadership and I believe in what we said before, the "must do", etc. I mean, our method is, "who proposes, eats it", just like that. So, be careful with what you propose, because you are going to eat it. We learn it from hackers, we apply it from hackers in a hacker community, the famous phrase: talk is cheap, show me the code. In a hacker community, if someone comes and says I have an idea and has nothing to show, but is neither mistreated nor anything, it's like a cactus, it doesn't exist, it's not an interlocutor. And then, I believe that if the work shows that the collective, the small or large group, can trust. This does not mean that we have to watch each other, because then one can become emboldened and can get carried away. But if one through work is constantly transparently demonstrating that it is worth it, then it is very relaxed and it is good for the whole structure that the person will receive the recognition and the structure receives the work of a person who does it also in a good mood.

What is very toxic is the governance system, which is based precisely on the opposite, in parliaments full of people who talk and do very little. This is a bit the opposite of social organizations that work both in companies and in civil groups that organize for activism, for needs, etc. Civil groups and companies organize much more like this than in our own governance and from there a very brutal dissonance between the real world and who governs this real world. This is worrying. And then a large part of my effort is to try to transfer these forms that are already very studied in the business field and in the field of civil society organization, in the field of governance, which is already due.

Traceability of information

You propose labeling information, how food is labeled, with a very specific type of labeling. And you have taken this to the European Parliament.

We have taken it everywhere, but no one pays attention, because they themselves should label themselves. The labeling of food, which now seems normal to us and it would be absurd not to know what what we eat contains, is a very recent thing, it is 20, 30 years old. When I previously commented that we have a methodology, etc., I was dazzled by the Internet around 2006, I come from militant activism, from this suffered, from assembly hours and hours, and nothing clear, heterosexual testosterone males who monopolize the discourse, etc. and of course, suddenly the Internet enters my life and I see how hacker communities worked, etc., in which only work is done. I mean, no one opines for hours. This needs to be done, so let's do it, come on, write the code, we get to it and we do it. And for example, about information, about the traceability of information, we already work like this. When you write a piece on the Internet and in communities or on sites like Reddit, etc., if you don't put the sources, no one says anything to you, you simply don't matter, no one will pay attention to you, you are nobody. Someone who writes an article without putting why they affirm something, where the source comes from, etc. It is something that if we can do, the people who revolve around the Internet, why can't the media or the great information emitters that are our governments do it? The government arrives and says communiqué, today it rains, but without any reliable source. And this is transferred in the media.

What is very toxic is the governance system, which is based precisely on the opposite, in parliaments full of people who talk and do very little. This is a bit the opposite of social organizations that work both in companies and in civil groups that organize for activism.

So, when you tell me who have you talked to about this? We have talked to many authorities and, for example, the Generalitat, through the Directorate of Civil Rights, said "Well, let's have a meeting with the media to talk about this topic". So, we had a meeting with all the media of all colors, the big ones, the small ones, etc., to say how the implementation of this would be at the level of Catalonia. And it was a very interesting meeting because it is simply impossible, it is impossible for several reasons. Because the media confess that 80 percent of what they publish is not information, but it is, for example, copy and paste. Today the government has said, then you copy the whole press release and that's it, the piece is done. But it is not, the government has said something and I verify if it is true or not. But also for a matter of immediacy, for a matter of how the model... I don't want to accuse the media here, but they say at the same time, if we all did it and then the one who reports worse would not be the first to come out.

Who can modify these dynamics? Those who govern and those who legislate. The labeling that we propose is not only for the press, because the problem is not the press. It is not the citizens, it is the press, but fifty fifty, the really responsible ones are the great information emitters and those who have money to viralize it, the corporations with a lot of money, governments, political parties, institutions. So, the first ones who should not issue a single line without explaining why they affirm certain things are them. The primary source, the source that invests in money, that we have to do "follow the money" to know why a news has so much relevance and another less, are those who command and who should legislate. So, our proposal is not going to have much legislative journey, but we keep insisting. Now, we will try to implement it in certain projects. We always in the methodology do the analysis, but then it is put into practice. Also with the issue of the bank, we have to audit the fourth bank of Spain because we are going to rescue it in 2012. So we have really audited it. We have opened the Bankia case. It is not just to opine, but also to do things. It is important.

What can companies learn from activism?

I believe a lot in entrepreneurship, I think it is our energy, a very important energy. So, as we are all part of an ecosystem that if it is healthier is better. I also believe that these agile forms, which in fact we learn from the company and vice versa. I mean, I believe that an activist group or a business group, I mean, that wants to function something that must serve in this real world, we actually have many things in common. In fact, the way of organizing I think is very similar. I believe in leadership, but I believe in distributed leadership. I believe that is what I said before. There is someone who must pull the cart and who has to rebuild the recognition for which the rest accept that he pulls the cart, but also at the same time in the boat there must be another leadership in which even who is the leader of everything, recognizes as an equal.

I believe that the companies I know and that also apply forms of this type are companies in which it is also lived better and in which there are very communicative vessels in the way of functioning and that also, many times we meet on the way to do things. For example, now that we are with the more democratic digitalization of public services, it is constantly... We carry the part of digital rights, companies carry the part of technology and it is very rich.

The machine is obsolete, it is a monster that does not move. And it is not just a machine, it is the people who move the machine. If we do not take the reform very seriously, it is a shame because we are losing many opportunities to really have better societies, much more happiness, much less poverty, many things much better. I think the problem is more there than in the legislation itself.

What are you most proud of?

I think of having combined, of having created a working methodology that has allowed us, of having known how to listen and then create such a working methodology that has allowed us to do many things among few and but in a very efficient way, but at the same time that, fun and not sacrificed. Of having been able to work an ironic and efficient activism at the same time, that one thing does not take away the other. So, of course, our Great Hit is the Bankia case, the Black cards, Rodrigo Rato and all this. This is the big one... The truth is that I am quite proud. I am very proud also of the moment when all the money was returned to the people who had lost money. We have managed to return 9 billion, which is said 9 thousand million, to small savers. And then the messages received, although all this maybe in the history books, the big ones, the important ones, it is not remembered that we have done a handful of nobodies, but the messages of the people who have recovered the money and their affection and the relationship with this person is one of the things that I think will always accompany me.

Let's not forget that it was you who started with a lawsuit in 2012 the whole process, that the Bankia case was opened, which ended with Rodrigo Rato in jail in 2018.

And that we leaked Blesa's emails with the Black cards. We had the whole establishment against us, even the establishment that in theory is the anti-establishment. So much is learned from this, from the many things that you imagine, this will be done by an investigative journalist, this will be done by a super lawyer and that no, you have to do it yourself. This is a learning that has been very useful to me, that basically we have to do it all ourselves. Then maybe you find someone who gives you a hand, but if not, count on having to do it yourself.

Fake you

A learning that has been very useful to me, that basically we have to do it all ourselves. Then maybe you find someone who gives you a hand, but if not, count on having to do it yourself.

Another of the initiatives that seems super interesting to me, is the topic of Fake you. This other book (Fake News) not only explains how misinformation and fake news work, but also talks about how cognitive biases work on which they rely and how to be a little on guard and armed, to identify that concept of follow the money, because in the end one of the things I take away is that this does not come from people. They want to make us believe or there is like a kind of... I don't know if they want to make us sound a bit paranoid, but in some way there is a narrative that we are the people who are inventing these fake news.

And what you discover and what you denounce is that by digging you realize where all this comes from. And this comes from the states and this comes from political parties and this comes from a system that takes advantage of these powerful instruments to manipulate pure and simple and plainly speaking.

All roads lead to political parties. I think all the evils. I think it is where we have to start to reform so that things go better.

I really like cognitive biases and I use this book for teenagers, for myself, which I have written myself, but to review, because I think that in the psychological part we must always be very vigilant of to what extent we contribute to certain things. So, I like to review also all the biases that we can put in things. The intention is not paternalistic regarding teenagers. I am a big fan of the new generations, I think they come very strong, with many things quite clear, they are very different from us, but I really like to rub shoulders with them. The idea of talking about misinformation is that the narrative about misinformation serves a bit to justify that, and not only about misinformation, a bit of our way of acting, is that the system always tends to blame the population for many things, of waste of I don't know what, of energy consumption, that we are the ones who use too much water.

It is that it really may be that we use too much water and it may also be that we are liars. But I wish the lies I tell had the impact that the lies that a government has, etc. could have. Everyone would be delighted that their lies were the ones that govern the world. So, I always have the perspective of correcting, of saying well, until those who command do not do it well, let's not blame the population, that we have our defects, but we also endure a lot. And on the subject of misinformation, the tendency is this institutional paternalism that you have to learn to share well, etc., when they share very badly, for example, themselves. So, that. I think we endure a lot and then it is surprising that people get fed up and vote, for example, extreme solutions. But there is quite strong institutional abuse in general over the population that then seeks escape routes and I think it is starting to be really dangerous. It is always dangerous, but there are historical times when it is more or less. And I think it is starting to be... We are entering a time when if we do not reform our institutions, we run the risk of then going towards simplistic and revenge solutions that will not be good for anyone.

What does it mean for you to be an activist?

I can't imagine another way of life. I mean, it's my way of seeing life. I mean, if there is something that doesn't go, it has to be fixed and that's it. And then, I am a theater director by training, but if a banking case has to be opened, then it is opened. And now we are digitalizing, trying to make digitalization more democratic, then it is done. For me it is a way of understanding life, but it is not a heroic way, I would not consider another way of living life. I dedicate my whole day to this, but I say it not as a sacrifice, it is my way of being in the world. And I like to be like that.

Have you ever felt threatened?

Let's say I have had prudence, I mean, at times more, sometimes more, sometimes less, I have organized myself with foresight, let's say. We have known that, for example, they have been digging a lot into our bank accounts to see if we had that, because we do many things and it tends to be thought that it is done for interest. But I really do it because I love doing it. And this is the only thing we know about things that have been done to try to attack us. Surely there must be others, but we don't know. So, now less, but it depends. At one time I also took certain precautions returning home, things like that, but of having been afraid no.

There is a law from 2014, that is, next year it will be ten years, there are two European directives, the 23 and the 24, which say that public procurement must be divided into lots to the maximum. I mean, the lot is so small so that not only mega giants can participate, but a small, medium-sized company, etc. Well, here we only comply with 30 percent, but the European average does not reach 50. So, we, who always think we are the bad ones, in reality, as always, the Nordics do it perfectly, but the rest... So, throughout Europe, in ten years, a legal obligation has not been applied that if I had a lot of money, I would push all public procurement until it is divided into lots. Because it is true, it is very complicated.

But there are administrations that are doing it well, for example, Valladolid. I mean, it must be possible what it is, but surprising that in ten years we have not even tried. We change the law, but it is not enough. We have to accompany this law door to door until it is implemented. And this is part of everyday activism, that all the people who fight in some area, which is really a bit Kafkaesque the context, but it is like that. Legislation is being done relatively well, but it needs to be implemented.

I read the legislation on the beach, I always say that I read it like a crime novel.

For me the issue of legislation, I don't know, it is something that always gives me... And I realize that it is a very serious mistake because it is a bit the source code of how the system is written.

I read the legislation on the beach, I always say that I read it like a crime novel. You have to read it like a crime novel. My training is not legal, but I learned, in 2005 I did a show based on the 2005 civility regulation, which was absurd. I did an absurd show in the street explaining to the population. And from there I have been passionate about reading law. Because you see the human, you see the killer. I mean, you read and you say look what they do here. I mean, look that the killer is here. I love, for example, article 88.2 of the intellectual property law. Why? It is what explains to you why the intellectual property law actually goes against artists and not in favor, which is what we defend the free culture people. Why does it start like this: "assuming that the author has already transferred all his rights to the distributor, comma", from there it legislates.

I mean, the legislation itself has taken away your rights, and so calmly. And then it is very interesting because you read it and if you read it like a novel, you see it, anyone can see it. There are, like all novels, there are more overdone and boring and others less, but there are very fun to read. Because you see the intention of the protagonist, you see what is behind, where it was intended to go. And then I think you have to take away the fear. From time to time one takes the newspaper, a magazine and a law to the beach and goes reading until...

I know that you have designed and implemented a leak mailbox in the Barcelona City Council. Is this so?

We were friends with Wikileaks when no one knew them, with Julian Assange. We were friends when we were all kids who always went to the Berlin meeting, where there is a hacker meeting, the largest in Europe. So, we all knew each other there. And there we discovered this very, very interesting idea of Wikileaks, of that of the leak system, etc. Then one can agree or not how they have done it, but I speak of technology. Then, learning from them, when we opened the Bankia case, we made available an anonymized mailbox to be able to receive information without us even knowing who sends it to us. Because of course, this is the important part, that if you don't know, you don't put the source in danger. And then, this is the mailbox of Blesa's emails. And then, from there, we have started to receive a lot of other information from other people and we try to carry a mailbox, we have helped other corruption cases, but we were immediately deported and said, but if this has to be done by the institution, here we are not. We couldn't keep up with all the corruption there is.

You can't. And then, when there was the change of government and Joan Linares, who was one of the officials in charge of the investigation of the Cas Palau, who was persecuted in danger of death, etc., he was the head of the transparency office. Then we told him "if you want to open a transparency office, put an anonymous mailbox". He is not technological at all, but he listened to us. And then this mailbox we didn't really open it. We did the activist part. The technology is from an activist group called Global Leaks. This system, the combination between us, the activist and more legal part, etc., and the institution and Global Leaks give these mailboxes. The first institutional mailboxes that were in Spain we opened in the City Council, but now the same ones have Antifraud, Antifraud Valencia, several city councils, the UB, the UPF, Railways, the Generalitat. I mean, there are more than 20 that have the same model. And now the OECD, here in Catalonia, will reproduce exactly the same. I mean, we have already opened a path of something that is precisely today mandatory by law to all institutions, all companies with more than 250.

But when we opened it in 2017, there too the institution, the first thing they told us was that this could not be installed anonymously because it was going to protect pedophiles and terrorists. So the children again. And then we told them, "we are going to publish this in the media and we are going to open a debate about this". Then, they immediately let us put it into operation. And now it is mandatory. I mean, in 2017 they treated us as crazy, as friends of pedophiles and terrorists and now it is mandatory by law. And then, of course, we have now freed ourselves, because now our mailbox we have closed it and now the institutions have to take care of it. In reality, some take care of it, others don't. But at least what we guarantee with these instruments is that it is anonymous. I mean, the person protects themselves, not with the paternalism of I denounce and I must trust that they do not say my name to the other party.

All the people who have alerted have had problems, except some who have taken precautions themselves. And for example, us, Blesa's emails, is one of the few of the great Spanish cases that the source is not known, because we have preserved it because we simply do not know who it is. Then, even courts have come to look for, to interrogate us, etc. And since we don't know who it is, we have no possibility of our source being in danger.