All language subtitles for BBC.Horizon.2014.Inside.the.Dark.Web.720p.HDTV.x264.AAC.MVGroup.org.eng

It's just 25 years since
the World Wide Web was created.

It now touches all of our lives,
our personal information

and data swirling through
the internet on a daily basis.

Yet it's now caught in the greatest
controversy of its life -

surveillance.

This is a spy master's dream.

No spy of the previous generations
could have imagined that we

would all volunteer for the world's
best tracking device.

The revelations of US intelligence
contractor Edward Snowden

have led many to ask if the Web we
love has been turned against us...

They don't just want your search
data or your e-mail.

They want everything.

And, as you are being surveilled
24/7, you are more under control.

You are less free.

..leading to soul-searching
amongst those responsible
for the Web itself.

I used to think that in some
countries you worry about the

government and in some countries you
worry about the corporations.

I realise now that that was naive.

But thanks to a collection
of brilliant thinkers

and researchers,
science has been fighting back...

It's really no surprise
that the privacy issue has
unfolded the way it has.

..developing technology
to defeat surveillance,
protecting activists...

They tried to intimidate me. I knew
that they don't know anything.

..and in the process coming
into conflict with global power.

They are detaining me
at airports, threatening me.

But now, thanks to
a new digital currency...

If you're buying less
than half a Bitcoin, you'll
have to go to market price.

..this technology is sending
law makers into a panic,

due to the growth of a new
black market in the Dark Web.

It was like a buffet
dinner for narcotics.

Our detection rate is dropping.
It's risk-free crime.

This is the story of a battle to
shape the technology which now

defines our world, and whoever wins
will influence not only the

future of the internet but the very
idea of what it means to be free.

The sickness that befalls
the internet is something that

befalls the whole world.

Where does the outside world stop
and private space begin?

What details of your life are you
willing to share with strangers?

Take this house.

Every morning, lights come on.

Coffee brews - automatically.

Technology just like this
is increasingly being

installed into millions of homes
across the world

and it promises to change
the way we live for ever.

So there are sensors of all kinds,

there's lights and locks
and thermostats

and once they're connected

then our platform can make them do
whatever you want them to do.

So as an example,

if I wake up in the morning,
the house knows that I'm waking up.

It can wake up with me.

When we walk in the kitchen,
it will play the local news

and sort of greet us into the day,
tell us the weather forecast

so we know how to dress
for the day and so on.

This technology is known
as the internet of things,

where the objects in our houses -
kitchen appliances,

anything electronic -
can be connected to the internet.

But for it to be useful, we're
going to have to share intimate
details of our private life.

So this is my things app.

It can run on your mobile phone or
on a tablet or something like that.

I can do things like look
at the comings

and goings of family members.

It can automatically detect
when we come and go

based on our mobile phones or
you can have it detect your presence

with a little sensor, you can put it
in your car or something like that.

So when we leave the house,
and there's no-one home,
that's when it'll lock up

and shut down all
the electricity used and so on.

For most of us,
this is deeply private information.

Yet once we hand it over,

we have to trust a company
to keep it confidential.

The consumer really owns 100% of
their own data so they're opting in.

It's not something where
that data would ever be shared

without their giving
their permission.

This house represents a new normal
where even the movements

within our own home are
documented and stored.

It's a new frontier.

The internet is asking us to
redefine what we consider private.

To understand the enormous
changes taking place,

it's necessary to come here.

Almost 150 years ago, this hut
was on the frontier of the world's

first information revolution -
the telegraph.

It was a crucial hub for
a global network of wires -

a role that is
just as important today.

Seeing the cables in a room
like this shows that the physical

infrastructure needed
to move information

around the world hasn't changed
very much in the past hundred years.

I think that the internet,

we tend to think of as a cloud
floating somewhere off in cyberspace,

but they're physical wires,
physical cables

and sometimes wireless signals that
are communicating with each other.

Cornwall, where the
telegraph cables come ashore,

still remains crucial
for today's internet.

25% of all traffic passes
through here.

Running from the United States

and other places to the United
Kingdom are a large number of the

most significant fibre-optic cables
that carry huge amounts of data.

Alongside this information
super-highway is a site

belonging to the UK Government,
GCHQ Bude.

We now know that this listening
station has been gathering

and analysing everything that
comes across these wires.

Any data that passes across the
internet could theoretically come

down these cables, so that's e-mails,
websites, the bit torrent downloads,

the films that you're accessing
through Netflix and online services.

The sheer amount of data
captured here is almost
impossible to comprehend.

In terms of what the GCHQ
were looking at, we've got

from internal documents that,
in 2011, they were tapping 200

ten-gigabit cables
coming into Cornwall.

To give a rough idea of how much
data that is, if you were to

digitise the entire contents
of the British Library, then you

could transfer it down that set
of cables in about 40 seconds.

Tapping the wires is
surprisingly simple.

The data carried by the fibre-optic
cable just needs to be diverted.

A fibre-optic cable signal
is a beam of light

travelling down a cable
made from glass.

Pulses of light represent
the pieces of information

travelling across the internet,
which is the e-mails, the web pages,

everything that's going
over the internet.

Every 50 miles or so,
that signal becomes sufficiently

weak that it needs to be repeated,
and this is the weak spot.

And it's very easy to insert
an optical tap at that point.

And that's just what GCHQ did.

A device was placed into the beam
of data which created a mirror

image of the millions of e-mails,
web searches

and internet traffic passing through
the cables every second.

What you effectively get is two
copies of the signal, one going

off to the GCHQ and one carrying
on in its original destination.

All of the information going over
those cables is able to be

replayed over the course of
three days so you can rewind

and see what was going over
the internet at a particular moment.

Analysing this amount of data
is an impressive achievement

but it also attracts criticism.

When you see the capacity and the
potential for that technology,

and the fact that it is being used
without transparency

and without very high levels
of accountability, it's incredibly

concerning because the power of that
data to predict and analyse what

we're going to do is very, very high

and giving that power
to somebody else,

regardless of the original or
stated intentions, is very worrying.

We only know about the GCHQ project
thanks to documents released

by US whistle-blower Edward Snowden,
and the revelation has begun

to change the way many people think
about privacy and the internet -

among them the inventor of
the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee.

Information is
a funny sort of power.

The way a government can use it to

keep control of its citizens

is insidious and sneaky,
nasty in some cases.

We have to all learn more about it

and we have to in a way rethink,
rebase a lot of our philosophy.

Part of changing that philosophy
is to understand that our lives are

not analysed in
the first instance by people,

but by computer programmes.

Some people just don't have an
understanding about what's possible.

I've heard people say, "Well,
we know nobody's reading our e-mails

"because they don't have
enough people."

Actually, hello, it's not... These
e-mails are not being read by people.

They're being read by machines.

They're being read by machines which
can do the sorts of things

that search engines do
and can look at all the e-mails

and at all the social connections
and can watch.

Sometimes these machines
learn how to spot trends

and can build systems which will
just watch a huge amount of data

and start to pick things out
and then will suggest to the

security agency, well, "These
people need to be investigated."

But then the thing could be wrong.
Boy, we have to have a protection.

The Snowden revelations have
generated greater interest

than ever in how the internet
is being used for the purposes

of surveillance.

But watching isn't
just done by governments.

The most detailed documenting
of our lives is done
by technology companies.

Two years ago, tech researcher
Julia Angwin decided to investigate

how much these companies
track our behaviour daily.

Her findings give us one of
the best pictures yet of just who is

watching us online
every minute of every day.

When I talk about the underbelly
of the information revolution,

I'm really talking
about the unseen downside

of the information revolution.

You know, we obviously have
seen all the benefits of having

all this information
at our fingertips.

But we're just awakening to
the fact that we're also being

surveilled all the time.

We're being monitored in ways
that were never before possible.

Every time we browse the internet,

what we do can be collated
and sold to advertisers.

So, basically, online there
are hundreds of companies that

sort of install invisible
tracking technology on websites.

They've installed basically
a serial number on your computer

and they watch you whenever
they see you across the Web

and build a dossier
about your reading habits,

your shopping habits,
whatever they can obtain.

And then there's a real
market for that data.

They buy and sell it

and there's an online auction
bidding for information about you.

And so the people who know your
browsing habits can also discover

your deepest secrets, and then
sell them to the highest bidder.

So let's say a woman takes
a pregnancy test

and finds out she's pregnant.

Then she might go
look for something online.

By making pregnancy-related
searches, this woman has become a

hot property for the people looking
for a good target for advertising.

The process of selling then begins.

Within seconds, she is identified
by the companies watching her.

Her profile is now sold
multiple times.

She will then find herself bombarded
with ads relating to pregnancy.

She may well find that she's been
followed around the Web by ads

and that's really
a result of that auction house.

Now they will say to you that they
know, they know she's pregnant
but they don't know her name

but what's happening is now that,

more and more, that information
is really not that anonymous.

You know it's sort of like
if they know you're pregnant,

and they know where you live,
yes maybe they don't know your name.

That's just because they haven't
bothered to look it up.

We continually create new
information about ourselves and this

information gives a continual window
into our behaviours and habits.

The next stage of surveillance
comes from the offices

and buildings around us,

sending out Wi-Fi signals
across the city.

OK, so let's see how many signals
we have right here, Wi-Fi.

So we have one, two -
16, 17, 18, 19,

20, 21, oh, and a few more
just added themselves,

so we're around 25 right now.

Right there at this point
we have 25 signals that

are reaching out, basically

sending a little signal to
my phone saying, "I'm here,"

and my phone is sending a signal
back saying, "I'm also here."

As long as your phone's Wi-Fi
connection is on

and connected to a signal,
you can be tracked.

Google, Apple, other big companies
are racing to map the whole

world using Wi-Fi signals and then,
whenever your phone is somewhere,

they know exactly how far
you are from the closest Wi-Fi

signal and they can map you much
more precisely even than GPS.

And we now know that this data
has been seized by governments

as part of their internet
surveillance operations.

The NSA was like, "Oh, that's
an awesome way to track people.

"Let's scoop up that information
too."

So we have seen that the governments
find all this data irresistible.

But is this simply
a matter of principle?

Is losing privacy
ultimately the price

we pay for peaceful streets
and freedom from terror attacks?

This man thinks
we should look deeper.

Bruce Schneier is a leading
internet security expert.

He was part of the team which first
analysed the Snowden documents.

They don't just want your search data

or your e-mail. They want everything.

They want to tie it to your
real world behaviours - location

data from your cellphone -
and it's these correlations.

And as you are being surveilled
24/7, you are more under control.

Right? You are less free,
you are less autonomous.

Schneier believes the ultimate
result from all this

surveillance may be
a loss of freedom.

What data does is gives someone
control over you.

The reason Google and
Facebook are collecting this

is for psychological manipulation.

That's their stated business
purpose, right? Advertising.

They want to convince you

to buy things you might
not want to buy otherwise.

And so that data is
all about control.

Governments collect it
also for control. Right?

They want to control
their population.

Maybe they're
concerned about dissidents,

maybe they're
concerned about criminals.

It's hard to imagine that
this data can exert such

a level of potential control over us
but looking for the patterns

in the data can give anyone
analysing it huge power.

What's become increasingly
understood is how much is

revealed by meta-data,
by the information about who is

sending messages and how often
they're sending them to each other.

This reveals information
about our social networks, it can

reveal information about the places
that we go on a day-to-day basis.

All this meta-data stacks up to
allow a very detailed

view into our lives
and increasingly what

we find is that these patterns
of communication can even be

used in a predictive sense to
determine factors about our lives.

And what some people fear
is what the spread of this
analysis could lead to.

Ultimately the concern of this is
that, in a dystopian scenario,

you have a situation where
every facet of your life is

something that is open to analysis
by whoever has access to the data.

They can look at the likelihood that
you should be given health insurance

because you come from a family that
has a history of heart disease.

They can look at the likelihood
that you're going to get

Alzheimer's disease because of
the amount of active intellectual

entertainment you take part
in on a day-to-day basis.

And when you start giving this
level of minute control over

people's lives, then you allow far
too much power over individuals.

The picture painted is certainly
dark but there is another way.

It comes from the insights
of a scientist whose work once

seemed like a footnote in the
history of the internet - until now.

The story begins in the late
'70s in Berkeley, California.

Governments and companies had begun
to harness the power of computing.

They seemed to promise
a future of efficiency,

of problems becoming overcome
thanks to technology.

Yet not everyone was so convinced.

David Chaum was a computer
scientist at Berkeley.

For him, a world in which
we would become increasingly joined

together by machines in
a network held grave dangers.

As computing advanced,
he grew increasingly

convinced of the threats these
networks could pose.

David Chaum was very far
ahead of his time.

He predicted in the early 1980s
concerns that would

arise on the internet
15 or 20 years later -

the whole field of traffic analysis

that allows you to predict
the behaviours of individuals,

not by looking at the contents
of their e-mails but by looking
at the patterns of communication.

David Chaum to some extent foresaw
that and solved the problem.

Well, it's sad to me but it is
really no surprise

that the privacy issue
has unfolded the way it has.

I spelled it out in the early
publications in the '80s.

Chaum's papers explained that
in a future world where we would

increasingly use computers,
it would be easy

to conduct mass surveillance.

Chaum wanted to find
a way to stop it.

I always had a deep feeling that
privacy is intimately tied to

human potential and

that it's an extraordinarily
important aspect of democracy.

Chaum focused on the new
technology of e-mails.

Anyone watching the network
through which these messages

travelled could find out enormous
amounts about that person.

He wanted to make this
more difficult.

Well, I was driving from Berkeley
to Santa Barbara

along the coastline in
my VW Camper van and

out of nowhere... You know, it was

beautiful scenery, I was just
driving along and it occurred to me

how to solve this problem I'd been
trying to solve for a long time.

Yeah, it was a kind of a,
you know, a eureka-moment type.

I felt like, "Hey, this is it."

Chaum's focus was
the pattern of communications that

a computer made on the network.

If that pattern could be disguised
using cryptography, it would

be harder for anyone watching to
identify individuals and carry out

effective surveillance,

and Chaum's system had a twist.

Cryptography has traditionally
been used to provide

secrecy for message content
and so I used this message secrecy

technology of encryption to actually
protect the meta-data of who

talks to who and when,
and that was quite a paradigm shift.

Chaum had realised
something about surveillance.

Who we talk to and when is
just as important as what we say.

The key to avoiding this
type of traffic analysis was to

render the user effectively
anonymous.

But he realised that wasn't enough.

He wanted to build a secure network
and to do this

he needed more anonymous users.

One cannot be anonymous alone.

One can only be anonymous relative
to a set of people.

The more anonymous users you can
gather together in a network,

the harder it becomes for someone
watching to keep track of them,

especially if they're mixed up.

And so a whole batch of input
messages from different

people are shuffled and then sent
to another computer, then shuffled

again and so forth, and you can't
tell as an observer of the network

which item that went in corresponds
to which item coming out.

David Chaum was trying to provide
protection against a world in which

our communications would be analysed
and potentially used against us.

Chaum's response to this was to
say, in order to have a free society,

we need to have freedom
from analysis of our behaviours
and our communications.

But Chaum's system didn't take off
because communication using

e-mail was still the preserve
of a few academics and technicians.

Yet his insights weren't forgotten.

Within a decade, the arrival
of the World Wide Web took

communication increasingly online.

The US Government understood
the importance of protecting

its own online
communications from surveillance.

It began to put money into research.

At the US Naval Research Laboratory,

a team led by scientist
Paul Syverson got to work.

Suppose we wanted to have a system
where people could communicate

back to their home office or
with each other over the internet

but without people being able to
associate source and destination.

Syverson soon came
across the work of David Chaum.

The first work which is associated
with this area is

the work of David Chaum.

A Chaum mix basically
gets its security

because it takes in
a bunch of messages

and then re-orders them and changes
their appearance and spews them out.

But this was now
the age of the World Wide Web.

The Navy wanted to develop anonymous
communications for this new era.

So Syverson and his colleagues set
to work on building a system

that could be used by operatives
across the world.

You have enough of a network with
enough distribution that it's

going to be very
hard for an adversary to be in all

the places and to see all
the traffic wherever it is.

Syverson's system was called
the Tor network.

Tor stands for "the onion router".
It works like this.

A user wants to visit a website
but doesn't want to

that identifies their computer.

As they send the request,
three layers of encryption

are placed around it
like the layers of an onion.

The message is then sent through
a series of computers which

have volunteered to
act as relay points.

As the message
passes from computer to computer,

a layer of encryption is removed.

Each time it is removed,
all the relay computer can see

is an order which tells it to
pass the message on.

The final computer relay
decrypts the innermost

layer of encryption, revealing
the content of the communication.

However - importantly -
the identity of the user is hidden.

Somebody who wants to look at things
around the Web and not necessarily

have people know what he's
interested in. It might just be the

local internet services provider,
he doesn't want them to know

which things he's looking at, but it
might be also the destination.

Syverson's system worked.

It was now possible to surf the net
without being watched.

As David Chaum had observed,
the more anonymous people,

the better the security.

The Navy had what they believed was
a smart way of achieving that...

..open the network out to everyone.

It's not enough for a government
system to carry traffic
just for the government.

It also has to carry
traffic for other people.

Part of anonymity is having a large
number of people who are also

anonymous because you can't be
anonymous on your own.

What Syverson and his team had done,
building on the work of David Chaum,

would begin to revolutionise the way
that people could operate online.

Over the coming years,

the Tor network expanded as more
people volunteered to become

relay computers, the points through
which the messages could be relayed.

What Tor did was it made
a useable system for people.

People wanted to protect
what they were

looking at on the internet
from being watched by their ISP or

their government or the company that
they're working for at the time.

But Tor's success wasn't
just down to the Navy.

In the mid-2000s, they handed
the network over to a non-profit

organisation who
overhauled the system.

Now the network would be represented
by people like this -

Jake Applebaum...

..researchers dedicated
to the opportunities

they felt Tor could
give for free speech.

We work with the research community

all around the world, the academic
community, the hacker community.

It's a free software project

so that means that all
the source code is available.

That means that anyone can
look at it and see how it works,

and that means everybody that does
and shares it with us helps improve

the programme for
everyone else on the planet
and the network as a whole.

Applebaum now travels the world
promoting the use of the software.

The Tor network gives each person
the ability to read without

creating a data trail that will
later be used against them.

It gives every person a voice.

Every person has the right
to read and to speak freely,

not one human excluded.

And one place Tor has become
important is the Middle East.

During the Arab Spring,

as disturbances spread across
the region, it became a vital

tool for dissidents...

..especially in places like Syria.

One of those who used it from
the beginning was opposition
activist Reem al Assil.

I found out first about Tor
back in 2011.

Surveillance in Syria is
a very big problem for activists

or for anyone even,

because the Syrian regime are trying
all the time to get into people's

e-mails and Facebook to see what
they are up to, what they are doing.

By the time the Syrian
uprising happened,

the Tor project had developed
a browser which made

downloading the software
very simple.

You basically go
and download Tor in your computer

and once it's installed,
whenever you want to browse the Web,

you go and click on it just like
Internet Explorer or Google Chrome.

Reem had personal experience
of the protection offered by Tor

when she was
arrested by the secret police.

I denied having any relation with
any opposition work, you know,

or anything
and they tried to intimidate me

and they said, "Well, see, we have...
we know everything about you so now,

"just we need you to tell us," but I
knew that they don't know anything.

By using Tor, I was an anonymous
user so they couldn't tell

that Reem is doing so-and-so,
is watching so-and-so.

So that's why Tor
protected me in this way.

Syria was not the only place
where Tor was vital.

It's used in China and in Iran.

In any country where internet
access is restricted,

Tor can be used by citizens to avoid
the gaze of the authorities.

China, for example, regularly
attacks and blocks the Tor network

and they don't attack us directly

so much as they actually attack
people in China using Tor.

They stop them
from using the Tor network.

But Tor wasn't just helping
inside repressive regimes.

It was now being used for
whistle-blowing in the West,

through WikiLeaks,

founded by Julian Assange.

Assange has spent
the last two years under

the protection of
the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

He is fighting extradition to
Sweden on sexual assault charges,

charges he denies.

I'd been involved in cryptography
and anonymous communications

for almost 20 years,
since the early 1990s.

Cryptographic anonymity
didn't come from nowhere.

It was a long-standing quest
which had a Holy Grail,

which is to be able to communicate

individual-to-individual
freely and anonymously.

Tor was the first protocol,

first anonymous protocol,

that got the balance right.

From its early years, people
who wanted to submit documents

anonymously to WikiLeaks
could use Tor.

Tor was and is
one of the mechanisms

which we have received
important documents, yes.

One man who provided
a link between WikiLeaks

and the Tor project
was Jake Applebaum.

Sources that want to leak documents

need to be able to
communicate with WikiLeaks

and it has always been the case

that they have offered a Tor-hidden
service and that Tor-hidden service

allows people to reach
the WikiLeaks submission engine.

In 2010, what could be achieved

when web activism met anonymity
was revealed to the world.

WikiLeaks received a huge leak

of confidential US government
material,

mainly relating to the wars
in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The first release was this footage

which showed a US Apache
helicopter attack in Iraq.

Among those dead were two
journalists from Reuters,

Saeed Chmagh and Namir Noor-Eldeen.

The Americans investigated,

but say there was no wrong-doing

yet this footage would never have
become public if Chelsea Manning,

a US contractor in Iraq,
hadn't leaked it.

Chelsea Manning has said
that to the court,

that he used Tor
amongst a number of other things

to submit documents to WikiLeaks.

Obviously, we can't comment on that,

because we have an obligation
to protect our sources.

The release of the documents
provided by Manning,

which culminated in 250,000 cables,

seemed to reveal the power
of anonymity through encryption.

Because with encryption,

two people can come together
to communicate privately.

The full might of a superpower
cannot break that encryption

if it is properly implemented
and that's an extraordinary thing,

where individuals are given
a certain type of freedom of action

that is equivalent to the freedom
of action that a superpower has.

But it wasn't the technology that
let Manning down.

He confessed what he had done
to a contact and was arrested.

Those who had used anonymity to leak
secrets were now under fire.

WikiLeaks had already been
criticised for the release

of un-redacted documents revealing
the names of Afghans

who had assisted the US.

The US government
was also on the attack.

The United States strongly
condemns the illegal

disclosure
of classified information.

It puts people's lives in danger,
threatens our national security...

Meanwhile, the Tor project,
started by the US government,

was becoming a target.

It's very funny, right,
because on the one hand,

these people are funding Tor because
they say they believe in anonymity.

And on the other hand,
they're detaining me at airports,

threatening me and doing
things like that.

And they've even said to me,
"We love what you do in Iran

"and in China,
in helping Tibetan people.

"We love all the stuff
that you're doing,

"but why do you have to do it here?"

Thanks to Edward Snowden,

we now know that this
culminated in the Tor network

being the focus of failed attacks by
America's National Security Agency.

They revealed their frustration

in a confidential PowerPoint
presentation called Tor Stinks,

which set out the ways in which the
NSA had tried to crack the network.

They think Tor stinks
because they want to attack people

and sometimes technology
makes that harder.

It is because the users have
something which bothers them,

which is real autonomy.

It gives them true privacy
and security.

Tor, invented and funded
by the US government,

was now used by activists,
journalists,

anybody who wanted to
communicate anonymously,

and it wasn't long
before its potential

began to attract
a darker type of user.

It began here in Washington.

Jon Iadonisi is a former Navy SEAL

turned advisor on cyber operations
to government.

There was some tips that came in
out of Baltimore,

two federal agents saying,

"You are a police officer,

"you really should take
a look at this website

"and, oh, by the way,
the only way you get to it

"is if you anonymise yourself

"through something
called the Tor router."

What they found was
a website called Silk Road.

And they were amazed when they were
able to download this plug-in

on their browser,
go into the Silk Road

and then from there, see, literally
they can make a purchase,

it was like a buffet dinner
for narcotics.

Silk Road was
a global drugs marketplace

which brought together
anonymous buyers and sellers

from around the world.

And what they found was
people aren't just buying

one or two instances
of designer drugs

but they're buying massive
quantity wholesale.

In London, the tech community
was watching closely.

Thomas Olofsson was
one of many interested

in how much money
the site was making.

Well, in Silk Road, they have
something called an "escrow" system

so if you want to buy drugs,
you pay money into Silk Road

as a facilitator

and they keep the money
in escrow until you sign off

that you have had
your drugs delivered.

They will then release
your money to the drug dealer.

We're talking about several
millions a day in trade.

The extraordinary success
of Silk Road

attracted new customers
to new illegal sites.

This part of the internet
even had a new name - the Dark Web.

A dark website
is impossible to shut down

because you don't know where
a dark website is hosted

or even where it's physically
located or who's behind it.

And there was one other thing
which made Silk Road

and its imitators difficult to stop.

You paid with a new currency that
only exists online, called Bitcoin.

Before, even if
you had anonymity as a user,

you could still track
the transactions,

the money flowing between persons,

because if you use your Visa card,
your ATM, bank transfer,

Western Union, there is always...
Money leaves a mark.

This is the first time that
you can anonymously

move money between two persons.

Bitcoin is no longer
an underground phenomenon.

Buy Bitcoin, $445.

Sellers will sell at $460.

If you're buying less
than half a Bitcoin,

you'll have to go to market price.

This Bitcoin event
is taking place on Wall Street.

45 bid, 463 asked.

But how does the currency work?

One of the people best placed
to explain is Peter Todd.

He's chief scientist for a number
of Bitcoin companies

including one of the hottest,
Dark Wallet.

So, what Bitcoin is,
is it's virtual money.

I can give it to you electronically,

you can give it to someone
else electronically.

The key thing to understand
about Bitcoin

is that these two people trading
here are making a deal

without any bank involvement.

It's a form of electronic cash

and that has massive implications.

So, of course, in normal
electronic banking systems,

what I would say is, "Please
transfer money from my account

"to someone else's account,"
but fundamentally,

who owns what money is recorded
by the bank, by the intermediary?

What's really interesting about
Bitcoin is this virtual money

is not controlled by a bank,
it's not controlled by government.

It's controlled by an algorithm.

The algorithm in question
is a triumph of mathematics.

This is a Bitcoin
transaction in action.

To pay someone in Bitcoin,
the transaction must be signed

using an cryptographic key which
proves the parties agree to it.

An unchangeable electronic record
is then made of this transaction.

This electronic record
contains every transaction

ever made on Bitcoin.

It's called the block chain

and it's stored in a distributed
form by every user,

not by a bank or other authority.

The block chain is really
the revolutionary part of Bitcoin.

What's really unique
about it is it's all public

so you can run the Bitcoin
algorithm on your computer

and your computer's inspecting
every single transaction

to be sure that it
actually followed the rules,

and the rules
are really what Bitcoin is.

You know, that's the rules of
the system, that's the algorithm.

It says things like, "You can only
send money to one person at once,"

and we all agree to those rules.

And Bitcoin has one other
characteristic

which it shares with cash.

It can be very hard to trace.

Well, what's controversial
about Bitcoin

is that it goes back
to something quite like cash.

It's not like a bank account
where a government investigator

can just call up the bank
and get all the records

of who I've ever transacted
with without any effort at all.

You know, if they want to go and
find out where I got my Bitcoins,

they're going to have to ask me.

They're going to have
to investigate.

The emergence of Bitcoin
and the growth of the Dark Web

was now leading law enforcement in
Washington to take a close interest.

Transactions in the Dark Web
were unbelievably more enabled

and in many cases could exist

because of this virtual currency
known as Bitcoin.

So, as people started
to take a look at Bitcoin

and understand, "How do we regulate
this, how do we monitor this?

"Oh, my God! It's completely
anonymous, we have no record,"

they started seeing transactions
in the sort of the digital exhaust

that led them into Silk Road.

And so, now you had criminal grounds
to start taking a look at this

coupled with the movement from the
financial side and regulatory side

on the virtual currency.

So these two fronts
began converging.

The FBI began to mount
a complex plot

against the alleged lead
administrator of Silk Road

who used the pseudonym
"Dread Pirate Roberts".

They really started focusing
on Dread Pirate Roberts

and his role as not just a leader
but sort of the mastermind

in the whole
ecosystem of the platform, right,

from management administratively
to financial merchandising

to vendor placement,
recruitment, etc.

Dread Pirate Roberts was believed
to be Ross Ulbricht,

listed on his LinkedIn entry

as an investment advisor and
entrepreneur from Austin, Texas.

Taking him down was really almost
a story out of a Hollywood movie.

I mean, we had people
that staged the death

of one of the potential informants.

We had undercover police officers
acting as cocaine...

under-kingpins inside Silk Road.

So, at the conclusion of all
these different elements,

they actually finally ended up
bringing in Dread Pirate Roberts

and now are trying
to move forward with his trial.

Whether or not he is
Dread Pirate Roberts,

Ulbricht's arrest in 2013
brought down Silk Road.

In the process, the FBI seized
$28.5 million

from the site's escrow account,
money destined for drug dealers.

Yet the problem
for the US authorities

was that their success
was only temporary.

The site is now up
and running again.

It re-emerged just two months
later by some other guys

that took the same code base,
the same,

actually the same site more or less,

just other people running the site,

because it's obviously
a very, very profitable site to run.

And Silk Road has now been
joined by a host of other sites.

One of the boom industries
on the Dark Web is financial crime.

Yeah, this website is quite focused

on credit card numbers
and stolen data.

On here, for instance,
is credit card numbers

from around $5-6 per
credit card number

paying in equivalent
of Bitcoins, totally anonymous.

The cards are sold in
something called a "dump".

I mean, it's quite a large number
of entries, it's tens of thousands.

You get everything you need to
be able to buy stuff online

with these credit cards -
first name, last name, address,

the card number,
everything, the CVV number,

everything
but the PIN code, basically.

The Dark Web is now used for
various criminal activities -

drugs and guns, financial crime,

and even child sexual exploitation.

So, is anonymity
a genuine threat to society?

A nightmare that should haunt us?

This man who leads Europe's fight
against cybercrime believes so.

The Tor network plays a role
because it hides criminals.

I know it was not the intention,

but that's the outcome
and this is my job,

to tell the society
what is the trade-offs here.

By having no possibilities
to penetrate this,

we will then secure criminals

that they can continue their
crimes on a global network.

And despite the success over
Silk Road and others,

he is worried for the future.

Our detection rate is dropping.
It's very simple.

The business model of the criminal
is to make profit with low risk

and, here, you actually
eliminate the risk

because there is no risk
to get identified

so either you have to screw up
or be very unlucky

as somebody rats you out.

Otherwise, you're secure. So, if you
run a tight operation,

it's very, very difficult
for the police to penetrate

so it's risk-free crime.

So, does the anonymity offered
by the Tor network

encourage crime
or simply displace it?

Those who work for the project are
well aware of the charges it faces.

There is often asserted
certain narratives about anonymity

and, of course, one of the narratives
is that anonymity creates crime

so you hear about things
like the Silk Road and you hear,

"Oh, it's terrible, someone can do
something illegal on the internet."

Well, welcome to the internet.

It is a reflection of human society

where there is sometimes
illegal behaviour.

These arguments aside,

for users wanting
to avoid surveillance,

Tor has limitations -

it's slow, content isn't
automatically encrypted

on exiting the network

and some have claimed
a bug can de-anonymise users.

Tor say they have
a fix for this problem.

Whilst the search for a solution
to bulk surveillance continues,

this man has a different approach.

He is Eugene Kaspersky,
CEO of one of the world's

fastest-growing
internet security companies.

300 million users
now rely on its software.

For Kaspersky, widespread
anonymity is not a solution.

In fact, he thinks
we need the absolute opposite,

a form of online passport.

My idea is that all the services
in the internet, they must be split.

So, the non-critical -
your personal e-mails,

the news from the internet,

your chatting with your family,

what else? - leave them alone so
don't need, you don't need any ID.

It's a place of freedom.

And there are critical services,
like banking services,

financial services, banks,
booking their tickets,

booking the hotels or what else?

So please present your ID
if you do this.

So, it's a kind of balance -

freedom and security,

anonymity and wearing the badge,
wearing your ID.

In his view, this shouldn't be
a problem,

as privacy has pretty much
disappeared online anyway.

The reality is that we don't have
too much privacy in the cyber space.

If you want to travel, if you want
to pay with your credit card,

if you want to access internet,
forget about privacy.

Yet, the idea that we could soon
inhabit a world

where our lives are ever more
transparent is very unpopular.

Some people say,
"Privacy is over, get over it",

because basically we're
trending towards the idea

of just completely
transparent lives.

I think that's nonsense because
information boundaries are important

so that means that we've got to
have systems which respect them

so we've got to have
the technology to produce,

which can produce privacy.

For those of us who might wish
to resist surveillance,

the hunt for that
technology is now on

and it is to cryptographers
that we must look for answers.

If you want a demonstration of their
importance to today's internet,

you only have to come to
this bunker in Virginia.

Today, an unusual ceremony
is taking place.

COMPUTER: 'Please centre
your eyes in the mirror.'

The internet is being upgraded.

'Thank you, your identity
has been verified.'

Right, we're in.

This is the biggest security
upgrade to the internet

in over 20 years.

A group of tech specialists have
been summoned by Steve Crocker,

one of the godfathers
of the internet.

We discovered that there
were some vulnerabilities

in the basic
domain name system structure

that can lead to having
a domain name hijacked

or having someone directed
to a false site and, from there,

passwords can be detected
and accounts can be cleaned out.

At the heart of this upgrade
is complex cryptography.

Work began on adding
cryptographically strong signatures

to every entry
in the domain name system

in order to make it impossible to
spoof or plant false information.

To make sure these cryptographic
codes remain secure,

they are reset every three months.

Three trusted experts from
around the world have been summoned

with three keys, keys that
open these safety deposit boxes.

So, now we are opening box 1-2-4-0.

Inside are smart cards.

When the three are put together,

a master code can be validated
which resets the system

for millions of websites.

We are very lucky because
every one of these people

are respected members of
the technical community,

technical internet community,

and that's what we were doing.

Just like the internet itself
was formed from the bottom up,

high techies from around the world.

So, step 22.

A complex set of instructions
is followed

to make sure the system
is ready to operate.

And now we need to verify the KSR.

This is the key step.

So, this is it. When I hit "yes",
it will be signed.

There you go, thank you very much.

APPLAUSE

These scientists want
to use cryptography to make

the architecture of the
internet more resilient.

But, for users,
cryptography has another purpose.

We can use it to
encrypt our message content.

So, if we want to change the way
that mass surveillance is done,

encryption, it turns out,

is one of the ways that we do that.

When we encrypt our data,

we change the value
that mass surveillance presents.

When phone calls are
end-to-end encrypted

such that no-one else
can decipher their content,

thanks to the science
of mathematics, of cryptography.

And those who understand
surveillance from the inside

agree that it's the only way
to protect our communications.

However there's a problem.

It's still very difficult to encrypt
content in a user-friendly way.

One of the best ways to protect
your privacy is to use encryption,

but encryption is
so incredibly hard to use.

I am a technology person

and I struggle all the time to
get my encryption products to work.

And that's the next challenge,

developing an internet
where useable encryption

makes bulk surveillance,

for those who want to avoid it,
more difficult.

At the moment, the systems
we're using are fairly insecure

in lots of ways. I think
the programmers out there

have got to help build tools
to make that easier.

If encryption is to become
more commonplace,

the pressure will likely
come from the market.

The result of the revelations
about the National Security Agency

is that people are becoming
quite paranoid.

It's important to not be
paralysed by that paranoia,

but rather to express
the desire for privacy

and by expressing
the desire for privacy,

the market will fill the demand.

By making it harder,
you protect yourself,

you protect your family and you
also protect other people

in just making it more expensive
to surveil everyone all the time.

In the end, encryption
is all about mathematics

and, for those
who want more privacy,

the numbers work in their favour.

It turns out that it's
easier in this universe

to encrypt information,
much easier, than it is to decrypt it

if you're someone
watching from the outside.

The universe
fundamentally favours privacy.

We have reached a critical moment

when the limits of privacy

could be defined for a generation.

We are beginning to grasp
the shape of this new world.

It's time to decide
whether we are happy to accept it.

'Thank you. Your identity
has been verified.'