WHY 2025 - Het Grote Cyber Debat

[Music] Welcome to the uh big debate. I will not be moderating that debate, but you are very welcome. We are very happy that we have found politicians who are willing to stand up for this in this debate. The debate will be moderated by Saar Sleeger, whom I hereby would like to uh announce. He's going to uh take over here. Uh, we are also very happy that Saar is willing to step in at the last minute . Jeroen should actually still have that, but unfortunately, due to the circumstances, it has been traded. So we are very happy that Saar wants to do that. Saar, thank you so much and that is very kind. And may I have a welcome round of applause for Sam. Thank you. And I am a journalist, and I was actually planning—this is my first Y—to be present here as a kind of fly on the wall and see what is being discussed here by all the hackers present, to get good ideas for stories. But now I'm standing here and it's an hour, so probably everything that can go wrong will go wrong if you can help me. If the experts can help me, if the politicians can help me. All help is welcome. But look, I think we're going to make a good debate out of this, because I'm interested in what's going to happen politically over the coming weeks and months. Well, that one was too. So uh, I would say I'm going to just go do chairs first, we're going to do some chairs in a bit. I need to take a quick look. I think I'm going to organize things a bit here, but may I already ask the politicians onto the, uh, stage? Uh, I'll start with Astrid Oostenburg. And now Erik Kent from Vol. Hi, welcome, you're always welcome. And Heiske van de Linde of the VVD. I hope it fits, because we see quite a lot of people on that stage. Um, I tried this, but it's not going well anymore. Jan, am I saying this right? Jan is busy. Yes. [Applause] So then take So from D6 or maybe I should then and then Sebastian van het Eren from GroenLinks and we’ve added someone else, what’s his name again from the Pirate Party. Come in, and uh, I introduce myself here. This is Matthijs Matthijs Pontier. Matthijs is also enough. And a round of applause after all. But of course we aren't going to have this debate with politicians alone, because, well, how interesting is that really? We also have experts. How many experts do we have? Three or five. Well, the expertise found itself in a corner. You know what? The experts may sit here for a moment. Right , next time. Yes, [Applause] the experts, uh, I introduce themselves in more detail once we are underway. Otherwise, you have to keep clapping for so long, and nobody likes your hands. And [Applause] good. Uh, what we are going to do then, we have five propositions. Uh, we have uh time, police. We have four, or maybe I thought five, experts. Am I missing something? Oh wait, uh, Breng, that's coming too, right? Uh, another chair, please. Um, let's see . Yes. Um, roughly what we're going to do, roughly, you know, we have five propositions there. Uh, one of the experts will introduce these statements, and then we, the ladies and gentlemen of the police, will respond to them. You can also respond, but how again? There was an online option to comment. Who can tell us that? Well, at some point you can have a different QF code. Oh, something is wrong. [Music] Signal Angels. The signal angels that collect questions coming in via signal. Ah yes, okay. So the signals that keep an eye on the signal. Uh, they will occasionally ask questions from the audience, so from you or from the people watching online. That is also possible. towards the shield, eh, those who can adjust to the experts or to the politicians. And I believe that the politicians, um, or the experts, if they think this is completely nonsense because it is being said now. What do you do then? Maybe someone can demonstrate it briefly. Yes. Yes. Yes, this is a kitchen ladle. I don't know exactly, there is something more going on , but actually, I don't know exactly how myself. Okay, just a quick note before we begin. I'm still a bit in the Liposuction myself, so I'm just relaxing a bit right now. I will briefly introduce myself. I am Sleders. I work with the Arpus program or Vtrl. Um, and I am here because I came here to Y—I mean, because I am always interested in safety and safety policy. And I always wonder, the moment measures are announced to protect us, to protect national security , then I always wonder whose safety this protects and whose safety it does not. And I thought: "Well, there are a lot of people here who have something to say about this subject ." So that is how I got here. I suggest we um take a look. Oh, a QR code is appearing on the screen. That is being fixed now. And if you know those QR codes, you can ask your question there. They go to the angels. The sting is caused by the bee, and then that question is asked. possibly wise. Um, I suggest we start with the first couples. I need to check. I'm just thinking for a moment, or could you suggest something more detailed? I haven't done that yet. No. Is that okay with you? I am pleased that you are here. That you have interrupted holidays, returned from beautiful paradises. I propose that we start with the first statement. I'm just checking who in heaven's name would introduce this into what grounds is he going to lay? Aren't you first on the list or not? [Applause] Do n't know what the statement is. No, I have to, you have to explain the statement . Oh oh, I was told that the propositions would be presented by the experts. They have no idea what they are going to talk about. So I am going to figure out what the propositions are. And perhaps you can digress a little bit more. Okay, okay. Okay. Uh, let me just look . Yes. Oh, is regulating AI or letting go in growth. Is he doing it? Okay. Micropone exp. Yes. Yes. Okay , that's great. Ah, uh yeah, well, regulating or letting go and growing, that is of course just a super false dichotomy anyway. Uh, because it’s not regulating and growing or letting go, and it just all collapses nicely on its own . That possibility is actually still quite there. You always have me with you. Um, so, and yes, from my expert role as an AI consultant and AI lawyer, I say: "Regulation is indeed necessary because we also have male protection here in Europe and in the Netherlands. And I, I am not sure if we want to head towards the end of America or the end of China. And if we don't want that, then of course we have to say something about it." Thank you, Nelke. Which of the politicians wants to be the first to, uh, respond to this? I found himself Erik, see you Erik, thinks it's good. Yes Erik, tell me. Uh yeah no I think test cautiously test. Yes, can you hear me? Yes, no, I think regulating is a good idea. Um, we are of course already doing that with the AI ​​Act, and I am glad that uh, one of the main points in the AI ​​Act is that uh, we need to work on uh, yeah, the understanding of, and I think we are really in a uh, yeah, a sort of hype right now from Select Pelly. So that you focus on, uh, a bit more understanding in society of what it actually is, but also what it isn't, what the limitations are, and what the risks are. I think that is very important, because it isn't going away. And I'm not saying you have to embrace AI, but in a time when AI is everywhere, you do have to start thinking, well, which skills are actually becoming more important. And spotting [ __ ], for instance, is a very good example. Then ask questions like, uh, what is important then, but what do you find important? I think it is important that we do not go along with everyone getting into that high. Um, I see AI companies now, uh, that, if I just ask, "But what exactly is AI about that project?" Because I think it's just visualization. Very nice, matured in real time with all kinds of external data sources. Then you also see, like, yeah, that's right. But otherwise, we don't want a prize and we won't get funding. Well, I think that says something about the hype we're in. And I think it is good when regulating that we therefore focus very strongly, also within the education group, on knowing the risks, knowing the dangers, and also knowing the application. I mean, uh, uh, there is actually a lot of beauty involved, and what, what does the VVD think about that? Well, what uh is uh is that uh what I say there as a liberal is hard to hear or uh Okay, for them it is easy to hear. So then uh what [Music] I yeah talk for a moment look we like this if it is clearly audible. Okay. [Music] No, microphone. You have to, yes, do that. Just... uh... what I don't think about it, I wanted to say, is... is that just like in... uh... in physical life, uh... obviously you need regulation to ensure that you protect human values ​​and safety and things like that, but that you have to be very strict in what you... uh... regulate. and what you allow. And I think that when it comes to developing new medicines or new products, we prove to be very capable of enabling businesses to innovate, and that digitally we should not be so afraid to let companies innovate as well, under the right agreements. It must be possible to test and try out much more, also in collaboration with the government. But you can trust the company that once agreements have been made, everything will work out. No, as the government, you must be present in the process where testing and trialing take place . You are a discussion partner in that, just as you are for companies that... uh... get new food regulations, right? No, but as a government, we are sometimes too afraid to participate in innovations. And how should the government act in this regard, and also make it more possible for testing to take place, and ensure that we make test kits available and help facilitate testing. We could really be more collective in that regard . Hmm hmm. Um, if there are opinions among experts in the meantime, then I'd like to see a handshake. Okay. Cannot look you in the eye . Uh yes, the Pirate Party here. Uh, uh, could you just... or could you just take a look? Your microphone might need adjusting. microphone. Yes, that one works. Uh yeah, I am the lead candidate for the Pirate Party, but I also have a PhD in AI. Uh, and in my post I also focused on the ethics of that. And uh, what is in any case very important in this regard is the role of the government to ensure the frameworks. So that companies are allowed to violate civil rights. Uh, that they must abide by the rules of a democratic constitutional state and other legislation. If I look at how things are going at the moment, then in very many cases that is of course not the case at all. So you definitely need to start regulating. Uh, you really have to look at simultaneity too, in the situation we are in now. How can the government and businesses look together at whether they can develop good alternatives, specifically within Europe for example, that comply with those civil rights? Uh, but it certainly needs to be properly regulated. That is the role of the government, which Yes. And I also think it is important that we make society more valuable again to combat the consequences of it. Because Pandora's box is simply open. If you take a good language model that isn't, uh, limited, you can simply ask: "Okay, I see Brenno looking back. Suppose I want to kill Brenno the winter. Give me a step-by-step plan on how I can do that in such a way that the chance of me getting caught is minimal." A [Music] No, but AI is fantastically capable of helping you do things at a much higher level that we previously couldn't have imagined. We were surprised when, uh, CSI as a television series showed what technicians look out for . If you use the power of AI to manage criminal masterminds, we as a society will become resilient against it, and no amount of regulation can prevent that. So I think we should realize it that way as well. Yes, of course we need to regulate. Of course, we must start protecting our privacy , but we will also have to learn that this genie can never be put back in the bottle. You nod. You nod. Can you hear me? Yes, um yes, I'm cutting partially. Um, look, and where we, where we are going, and and uh, we started from a uh, a cautious position of learning, and so on. And I understand that, but I think it would also be good to first have a conversation about where it is going and where it might lead. So I was very happy with these words, because we are of course moving towards a society where everyone is basically hyper-intelligent, uh, thanks to the tools. And uh hyper intelligent. Well, you can do that in the sick at like [Applause] just take the microphone off for a moment. I'll get it back in a moment . But holds up a small sign. Yes. Yes. Not everyone here is hyper- intelligent. I understand what you're saying. I really am taking it away. Developing The idea is that the boundaries of what we can do are naturally being shifted, and uh, I think we do need to take that into account and be aware of it as well . And at the same time, I see that the regulations are, well, searching for their footing. Um, we have always been used to the regulatory environment that things really lag years behind developments. And now there is suddenly a call for guys to please catch up on this quickly, because we find this really dick-tastic and scary. Um, and I understand that call, I get that. Yes, because in America, they are pulling out all the stops to get rid of that AI . Yes. How should we respond to that, then? Should we say that it is important that you understand that it all takes place within a specific context? Uh, a cultural context is not taken into account in an L-model that is made in America or in China. So I understand very well that here internally in Europe with our own communes, it is very important that we have models that fit our society in our way. Yes. And in that regard, we really need to take a big step forward, and not so much in just thinking and shaping the world, but in actually making a step forward to develop those kinds of models and ensure that they become available to the people. I do see that regarding the PV as well, if I may add what I hear there in our conversation now—actually two different elements. You have the component if it is accessible, is good for the general public, and you have developed this component. If we look at drug development, for example, there is an entire phase called the development phase where it is not yet on the market or available to the general public. In that phase, you can, uh, uh, I think you have to dare to allow a lot of innovation, within the boundaries that you can't just obtain it openly, and that it can be used by people who don't know what they are choosing. In addition to that, I think—and this applies not only to AI but to a great many digital applications. The general public in the physical world can, um, uh, understand very well when you translate safe behavior. And we all know that when we buy peanut butter at a supermarket, you can safely load it onto the boat. Whereas if you, uh, grab a little something at a small street, you really have to take a look for yourself at how it's prepared there. And I just heard as well that things were imminent here and other things need to be, uh, paid attention to. Uh no, but seriously. Um, uh, it's much harder digitally. I think that we, as politicians, are not discussing that enough . How do ordinary householders know what safe behavior is? Yes, what are safe. I think we actually get the impression from the government that it is too present in a number of places , but that it is also absent on a number of points. Okay . Just a moment before I saw, just be honest, and then I'm going to... or well, may you first just say... uh... as to do. No no, I always always really like to listen first to everything that is being said, and then I process that in my head. We are talking about different things. You get it, uh, because you, uh, I now have two, I now have two, uh, microphones. How sweet. Uh, of course we have AI and generative AI. Um, you can see the one thing as a sort of uh assistant who uh just gives some instructions. Um, and then you should n't, well, you can ask how do I kill Bren, make it easy, and then he feels more and more with the [ __ ] knife, you know. But of course, you also have the solution where all the data that is correct has been put into it. So if we start by learning what is, uh, good data, and what is bad data? Completely agree with those LMs. The only annoying thing is, as a woman, I'm wondering... what kind of salary can I roughly ask for? Women are advised to ask for less than men, so I think the model isn't fully trained. So you are saying that we also need to, uh, maintain control over which data that should be done? Certainly, because I think you can steer there, you can set frameworks there, and then you focus on ethics. But you're going to talk about this technique; it wasn't invented yesterday, it's been around for a very long time. Everyone uses it every day. In any case, if you are driving somewhere, AI has already decided for you: " Oh, you are leaving now, you are going there." Uh, what happens on the way? List all the data contained in it. Um, so you're not going to stop it anymore, but you can regulate it. But do you also see that in the problem you actually point out at the beginning—that we are now talking about AI, but we are talking about AI, yet by not really going into the nuances of what that AI is, the debate is actually almost decided from the outset? Will be the next blockchain eh debate? Yeah, you know, we're wrong. Should you be politicians, or should you leave that to other people? Should politicians even be talking about uh things like that at all? Yes, exactly. Yes, you have to help, in any case, I think . So maybe it's just a few seconds. But that is exactly why I started with that story about literacy. Because if you indeed think about, uh, large language models, yes, language is simply something where, throughout the entire history of humanity, we have always found it perfectly normal that there is an intention behind it. A person with ideas and you want to put them into words. And now it is very difficult to deal with words that are simply statistically free without intent. While only for the law of us all, or at least of all, good of all . Well, no . Yes, from everyone, but that is also that part of regulation. Uh, I do n't think we're coming back. Yes, I see a uh hello, I am and I am even sitting thank you. As is often the case, the expert is not on the stage, but underneath it, as is usually the case . And uh, I listened very carefully to everything that was said previously, and I triggered a point about how politicians all become literate, and the answer was no. Well, that's [ __ ]. Everyone becomes AI here. We need to regulate that in a very fine-meshed and precise manner . Don't regulate too much, don't regulate too little, but we need to get it exactly right. So if you want to do that, you have to be an expert. That does not mean that every individual politician needs to be an expert, but it means that the Dutch government needs to say again: "Okay, we are setting up a real expertise center A on this with top MVN people." And I don't hear anyone saying that. I hear everyone saying: "Yes, we need to regulate so well ." Who is going to do that, then? Because at the moment, I only see the government hiring people with extensive policy experience. Even if you are a nuclear energy expert, say: "Hey, we'd really like you to have 20 years of experience with the House of Representatives." Then you would have become a nuclear energy expert in the evenings. Uh, but I really hope that if you continue with this debate—I am all for that one-off regulation, but if you don't say alongside it: "Okay, we are going to hire 1,000 people for that, and for once they won't be policy scaffolds, but real substance people with PhDs." Oh, you are really appreciated. I would do that. Thank you . And otherwise just take this one, you were of course absolutely right, because it is no different than, uh, sewage or housing construction, which the police don't do themselves either; fortunately we have experts for that too. That is not Erik, it is a microphone, exactly what makes Erik. Between, uh, we have to, I need to be here and good policy, but we also have to work ourselves and that is a bit off for me too. But that’s what you want, well, I don’t use language models to write my text, because I do n’t think it’s suitable there at all. So you want to do the creative things yourself . But translating the audio, that's what I do use it for, so to speak. Precisely. The difference between different types requires different accounts. Just a quick question from earlier, and if I pay well, hire thousands of highly specialized people to regulate this. Who is for that? I think we need to have a completely different debate with each other first. Namely, the relationship between market and government. It is nice that we here in the Netherlands think that we can arrange something with 1,000 super good people . I think you already said this in your opening. So the question is: do we choose American AI or Chinese AI? It's nice that we in the Netherlands are doing something for our little frog country. Precisely that relationship between market and government. We will have to discuss that . Taking a position ourselves, and then when we say we are really taking the helm, it makes sense to bring in experts . Now, experts in scaling say yes, we provide the advice, but we still leave the power to the market. It makes absolutely no sense. I'm going at the period. I'm going to leave it at that for now, sorry, because uh, we're not getting our stand finished. I would like to ask. It is possible to ask questions online or in the room. And if all goes well, those angels are involved. Angels. I don't know exactly where, you know. Oh, there is a microphone. Have questions even come in online as well? Ah , okay. Um, are there any questions? If anyone has questions, I have room for one question and that person may use the microphone. Who is first? Good. Yeah , knuckle. Next time we'll do that a little differently, but um okay, tell me briefly who is where and what is briefly. Yes, I mainly taught people. Uh, a question about the power shift resulting from AI. So enormous security power goes to the tested company. He is on the button to determine which side the answer with uh of LM's problem is on. And what is the answer there? Do you have the question for someone in the money sector? No , who wants to? Who wants to? Matthijs, uh, I'm not that either. Yes, just like technology, it has the potential to give a very small group of people a lot of power. And actually, with almost all problems in society where you look, if that small group of people has too much power , then things go completely wrong. And what you can do as a government, in any case, is try to distribute that power as fairly as possible by looking at other models. By looking more at cooperative models. Uh, by going open source, uh, doing it. So, uh, also developed things uh, that are available to everyone. everyone can continue unwinding on it. And now those big tech companies are in such an easy position that they can actually, in fact, extort us, and uh yeah, that has to be easy, and we can break through that way. Oh, I see. Yes. Look, what makes you so special. Um, and because I really go along with your story about so-and-so. What makes it so beautiful, so special, is of course those lamps, you know, you just ca n't ship those. You don't know what has all been sensed. You don't know what he's going out for, so modeling on that based on a large group of people is just difficult. Hops, you can still, uh, you can just still, uh, go look like, hey, sit through it, etc. But for the NL, it is going to be a bit very difficult. And what I worry about is a genuine concern, and I have no answer to it. What I ensure is that, regardless of the type of institution, whether government or business, it is, it does not matter what kind. The moment someone simply has access to develop something like that and bring it to market , you therefore also have control over the narrative. If you have control over the narrative, you therefore have power by definition. And the question is where and to whom do we grant power at this moment? And I establish that. Uh, just a quick question here too, a few... well, uh, Rondroos... well, um, I'm shocked, because there are six people sitting here with a monthly contract who only have to say: we ban the use of transatlantic systems in Dutch education, make law for it... uh, I think that's just a year, you have it. Who among you would be willing to start banning transatlantic systems? That is... uh, what do you mean? So you're basically saying there are systems that we don't want in Dutch education, that it remains mandatory. Yeah, look, I just saw that you wanted to say z, so this, uh, well, I'm going with two microphones again. First of all, has anyone ever heard of Stuart Onership? Ah, still standing here. Look, there's Stubert. Oh, we're already starting with that . Um, I'm one of not everyone, well , I'm one of the DVD scammers. As most people know, in the middle academy, we are now going to organize a commercial event for younger DVD Works. But we are going to do that under Stewart ownership. So everyone who goes to work for DVD Works becomes, uh, CEO, becomes an owner. The moment you step out, you no longer have any say over the company. The company remains in the hands of the employees. ensures that you can never sell your soul again . That there will never again be shareholders who say: "Yes, a nice product has been developed. Now we are going to deploy it commercially and we are going to poison all those children's... uh... heads." Because uh, get the [ __ ] out of Google. We don't say it often enough. I said it as an MP, and then you get all kinds of parties saying, "But they also do a lot of good things." They make really good ones. They give free things to children, but even now, 12 years later, we are sitting here having the same debate. So yes, I waited and I executed it. Okay, I uh I'm doing very well. [Applause] Yes, but we are going to continue with the second proposition anyway, because I think we can fit another one in there now as well. So, um, fear not, because of the second theorem. Um, for that, uh, I'm inviting Head in a moment. I'll get the microphone already. I will briefly read out some statements. The proposition is: Reprogram the government. Do it yourself or keep outsourcing. Rom, tell me. Yes. Yes. Stand up for a moment so, uh, they can see. I am very, very, because, uh, I think, you know, I'm going into a little bit of depth. Who knows Rik Maas? Rik Maas. Head Teacher. Al Teacher Amsterdam came up with the neglaks model and thought that if you have enough directorial knowledge, you can conquer the market, which is positive. The only way to have self-knowledge is to do enough yourself . And that means those 1,000 people mean much more than 1,000 people. And if you do a lot yourself, you can also assess whether the things you do n't do yourself are going well. Whether the people in the market have a bit of quality. So as far as I'm concerned, do a lot yourself and let others do what isn't very important, but check it thoroughly. I am [Applause] place who argues for the opposite well this week surprising. No. Um, I wholeheartedly agree that you really need to understand what you need to turn on. But the illusion that, as a government, you should and could do everything yourself . I think that is simply not possible, and I do n't think you should want to do that either. Um, uh, because it's about way too much . Because digitalization is in almost everything we do. As the government might say, "I'm going to do all of that myself." But I just said in the first part: We are like we are absent on crucial things. And if I may draw a parallel with the physical world. As a politician, for example, I handle the spatial planning portfolio in my municipal council . I don't know if you know this, but when we handle spatial planning—you know, designing the physical space—and we turn something into a 30 km/h road, then we have to ensure that the physical design of that road aligns with the behavior we expect from people. So you recognize the 30 km/h road by how it is constructed. And so that is not a highway. I feel that we, as a government, are not taking these kinds of design choices and design responsibility at all in the digital realm. We collectively do not think enough, and we are not yet systematically considering how we should organize our collective digital interactions— that shared digital life— so that ordinary people who are not particularly digitally skilled, or those of you in the audience, know what to do, wherever they are. That is what you, as a government, must be about; that is what you, as a government, must be about. As a government, you do need to possess the necessary expertise in-house at this moment to make those decisions . So we need, uh, uh, we need to bring the right knowledge on board. But the question is, for example, how many people need to have there? I will give you the answer. An answer, a subject that Ron and Rik know each other from . Building a European digital identity wallet. As a government, you need to understand what that is and what you need to do to be able to create the right rules . But I don't think that the government should build a European digital identity wallet itself. Just as I also don't think the government should build cars. Why? Um, no, uh, well , that sounds a bit like let 's outsource Digide to the market. Uh uh let's not have a status of uh masterbell anymore. Um, that's very honest, I think you really should build into it and that it should be open source and available to everyone , so that other people can see what they think is best. But that's fine too, it's something you decide. Why is it [ __ ]? Yeah, so it's [ __ ] that you shouldn't do that yourself, because if you want to regulate it, you have to be able to, you have to do it. But what if the find system doesn't work, or does it not work? listen eco. Within the ecosystem and the responsibility you have as a government, you have to think about—okay, means of transport are emerging, if I may compare it to that for a moment. You have to think about that, and you have to consider whether you have the responsibility to also facilitate additional public transport for people who do not want to use what they can obtain through the market . And that could be the argument for offering a government wallet . So you have to choose your position very carefully. What are you all about and why do you do it? Because otherwise you will start doing things for the wrong reasons, and thereby, for example, release innovations from market constraints. And that would be a shame. And then you're really limiting innovation, aren't you? Uh K, for example, you had 13 seconds. Yes, we have to—I just heard we have a bit of a stupid power problem where we still have to switch. So maybe if you talk, wait a second and then come, yeah, uh, yeah, I'm going to pay attention to the word ecosystem, because I completely agree with that . And there are indeed various models that you can pull more towards yourself. And I think Surf is a very good example. Uh, we don't have that for the municipality yet. So for the municipality, and I say also in the municipal council now. So I am fully seated in the House of Representatives, but am now on the municipal council, because it has just been indicated to the VNG that we are going to purchase jointly. Whereas what the entire higher education sector is doing is simply acting as a joint ICT service provider. Just a quick surf. What does Surf do? It is the joint ICT service provider for higher education in the Netherlands. And we don't have that. Oh. [Applause] V [ __ ]. Yeah, a serving player for a bit by the way, I think. Paul, if you put your pole here. [Applause] But but it is the one, uh, the VNG does the V, the VNG is already doing this. And um, that is n't always a, uh, a divided success, is it? And the baiting given safely in the past has not always been so festive. I see a VNG, by the way, so maybe that is actually quite good. Yes. Our Yes, good afternoon. I am KT Vierbergen and, uh, when I am not at Y, then I am at the VNG, uh, a policy advisor and dossier holder on digital security and also strategic autonomy. Very happy with this debate. And uh, the VNG already has framework agreements for digital. They tuned it to the ZXI again. Before that, we already had them on uh digital forensic investigation and on uh cicurty advice. We already have that for telephony as well. And so, in that way, we have already gained a lot of experience to do that on other parts as well. And that is also the role of VNG. The only thing is, you have to settle that with our members now. We recently made an agreement with all members in a resolution, and that means that all municipalities stand behind this to say that, digitally speaking, the code does not matter to 80% of our IT, whether, uh, what kind of system is behind the parking meter or behind the baling. We can also do that together. So we don't have to do that separately 342 times . That is a very big decision, because it means that we can start collectivizing, organize differently, work together much more intelligently, and take enormous steps in that direction . And have you taken that berry yet or? Yes, we adopted that at the General Meeting last June, with all members. After that, the NDF, the National Digitalisation Strategy, was sent to the House by the State Secretary for Digitalisation, in which we are also very keen to participate. We see good cooperation in that, but certainly joint purchasing in a smart way, where expertise is also deployed smartly, and thereby our responsibility lies with the municipality. So we already have experience. Let's see. I see here. Yes, there is just one more point I wanted to make. In my view, there is no greater poison for government ICT than tenders. [Applause] I think I'll just look into that tender in a moment, because several points have been made. But a very large market of procurement consultants is now becoming very sad. Uh, that actually also underscores the words that Rond spoke earlier. I come from a medium-sized congregation, and actually, for every service—for every service that an ordinary congregation has—you hire an external consultant. The one who writes the tender, the one who runs the tender. You end up with roughly the same offer subject to the same conditions. Even though, well, everyone puts time, money, and effort into it . And the question is: did we really have a good conversation? And that question is: can you, as a municipality, ask the right questions at a high level? I think it is right as well. No, we can't do that. But the other question, uh, is of course the question: yes, we are going to organize collectively. But are you going to do that collectively as well? What is that question again? Which one does it go to, a company? One company, a collective of companies. Are we going to do it ourselves or together ? That question definitely needs to be put on the table . Yes, there are two points. We have the tendering point, if I am not mistaken, and the point is, do we all need to want to do that collectively? Am I right? That can be said upon viewing. I would like to briefly mention tenders. Simply because it is so alive there. Is there anyone for this, uh, because those tenders are for nothing right now, of course. I mean, we want to keep the budget somewhat in line. Um, has anyone ever uh predicted? Do you like a microphone? Yes. No, I have a microphone. He does . Yes. Okay . Well, I was just in the middle of a sentence about having to think in terms of ecosystems. And then step one is indeed joint tendering, but you can certainly look at which things we as the government need to provide more direction on, to determine how entrepreneurs can subsequently build on that. Uh, if you look at ESS, they have built a kind of data platform based on, let's say, a standard, so they use Ideas intervality. But can entrepreneurs really help build everything you want to have? And I think that tendering is ultimately also a way to let the entire society—including entrepreneurs—help build the direction the digital world is headed. And also outsourcing a little. Yes. And this is exactly what Surf does, because they build all kinds of open-source packages that already exist. they uh uh also provide stream, they again uh contribute to the projects, and ultimately that is what it is about education. But the rest of the whole world can then build upon what they are working on. You're not acting as if I can separate the government from... no, really, oh sorry, you are... uh, um, you, as a government, are not an island. Together, you are society, together with those companies as well, with enthusiastic, uh, uh people who want to contribute to developments and innovations based on their professional expertise. I have driven an incredible amount of value, truly driven by the conviction that things can be better, safer, more privacy-friendly, um, service providers—I have met at companies, and they simply exist and want to participate. And what you above all need to do as a government is open your eyes and let them into that conversation. and not be afraid to, uh, for the, uh, uh, the conversation about, well, what rules should we actually, what agreements should we make with each other to do this well for our society. You can do that together perfectly well. To collaborate. Collaborative lecitivization says here. Mert, I saw that you were just now . No, no. Oh, I found a nice little thing, because we have to, uh, move on to the next station soon. Oh, wait. Uh, a short thing. You do your thing and then we move on to the next one, I suppose. [Music] Yes. Oh well. I would like to ask one more question , because the question is, of course, the government does have certain tasks, so who dictates what we are talking about, and who sets the standard? Because you can always do that in consultation. Or perhaps, as the police, could please take the lead on that and have a conversation about what should be included? Because so that we can talk about how we do it. Um, you notice you are frustrated by it, because you say you miss that right now, because you want to have the conversation, and who is sitting across from you then, and who is telling me right now how things are going, who feels the conversation from the government at this moment? The antennas, but with those companies and tendering agencies, to see what standards you include in your tender. But do those civil servants know? They are not well enough informed about what actually happens. Do n't you need more experts there? Yes. No, what are you doing? Yes, as an expert, you need to know. You must, if you must, this, this is a part of you, so you must know what you are building. You need to know what you are creating as a civil servant. You need to know what it is about. You need to know the world of digitalization. But you also have to make choices, for example, whether to build a wallet ourselves or leave that to the market . And I hear the VVD saying here: "Well, let's just leave that to the market." The VVD says nothing. He does say it is possible through Mar. Okay , very briefly what you want to say. Then I just want to mention what I said: if you, as the government, take a position and act as a market regulator, then you say car manufacturers build cars. We determine the rules that cars must comply with before they are allowed to be driven safely, and we also determine the rules for who may drive which means of transport under which conditions . That is where you are present as the government . And within those preconditions, companies may then surround cars. And I say, regarding digitalization, does n't politics now dictate how, uh, heavy that car can be, how much, uh, gasoline it is allowed to consume? And so, right now, we have car companies in the digitalization phase making cars that are too heavy and too aggressive . Okay, that is exactly my point. And that is exactly what we, as far as I am concerned, shouldn't just start building a car ourselves right now and say this is the only car you are allowed to drive around in. We need to seize that higher position. We shouldn't dare to have a vision on what we consider responsible and what not. Silly and may I just... I want to stop by for a moment because I hear here... actually I think... want to hear it again... yes, take a look . Yeah, just mentioning it because I'm curious, maybe there's a panicked person there. But you also mention, in any case, that there must be people who provide guidelines. What do we all want? What do we stand for? I think that's kind of what you're here for, too . And I just heard us saying, " Hey, the government needs experts who can determine what is good." And then I heard who in the room has yeast for more experts in the government who can determine what is needed. Who's there, Ken? I belong to the people of the Netherlands. Oh, that is... Oh, okay. No, take it easy. I just wanted to uh read it to you for a moment. Yes. Yes, because uh indeed uh uh they are all political questions as well, so those naturally have to come from the box representatives in collaboration with those experts anyway. Uh, but above all, the government simply needs to start doing much more itself. You had a very good, uh, counter-lighting the other day. The consultant rules. Well, then you basically have the story that, uh, only those being removed are no longer with the government. are working with an expensive consultancy firm that then has to be hired by the government, causing us all to spend a lot of taxpayers' money while lacking in-house expertise. Uh, that also makes purchasing more difficult, because that knowledge is not always available. Well, I think purchasing is better in some places than others , but I speak to people who say that if we have a contract for the government , we know we can easily charge two or three times more. So then I think, well, at least something isn't quite right there. Uh, I've been in the waterschot for a while myself too. Um well, you might have read that, but a number of things didn't go quite right as well . Um, it turned out that in a Waternet foundation that actually operated outside the representation, the influence on the figures was arranged therein, and the tax system was purchased with which we had no tax books. That has uh led to uh quite a few problems uh. In the end, we were able to repair that, well, as much as possible. Also, by the way, with thanks to the block blowers who played a uh important role in that . But there you also see that that purchasing, uh, yeah, that is just quite tricky sometimes if you also, uh, don't have the knowledge for it in-house . And if you do have that knowledge and you have the knowledge to do it yourself, then, uh, then of course it just goes a lot better. And that collaboration is indeed also an important point. Um, for example, from the Water Tribe, we go do things together in the Water Tribe House. Uh, together with municipalities as well; we might have quite a bit to discuss with Hilvissem about that soon . Um, and also indeed in Europe, uh, also mainly just governments cooperating. That way, you can actually uh arrange things much better, and then you also have uh enough uh negotiating power to do it that way. Definitely went home with the knowledge. Thank you. Yes. long-standing cooperation has spoken about cooperation. I heard online that questions are also coming in. Um yes, a whole lot of questions have come in, more than 50. And I also want to emphasize that it is still possible . I've just made a URL of it , because you can't see it on the screen anymore. And that URL, pay attention, I'm going to mention it once. Maybe again . MnOT.nl/debat. Then you'll get there . That is mnot.nl/debat. But what could cause the biggest stir is not so much the question that the people in the room have not yet forgotten what the mood was. They already left, so why do you have to acquire that knowledge yourself, uh, by doing the same thing? Yes, they say we definitely have to do that. But whether we do it ourselves or not, how are we going to enforce all those new digital rules that are yet to come? So, especially the people here on the stage, how are we ultimately going to enforce this if there are no rules regarding whether we do it ourselves or not? Sorry, you can take a break for a moment. Yes. Sometimes this question has received the most photos . So everyone sending in questions, uh, you can also vote on which question you find most important. This one was about enforcement. A great many lives are coming . How are we going to enforce that? How are we going to enforce that? Who? Or Erik. If you ask in your tender for a type of software that also adheres to the over-standards that Alsert uses, I think it makes this problem much smaller. Yes, no one is it someone who disagrees with it. Oh, wait a minute. Our microphone. Look, before you start enforcing, you have to search them first. I work for, among others, a water board where currently more than 25 laws and policies in the field of digitalization need to be incorporated into how that organization carries out its work. That is incredibly complex, and new rules or insights are added almost every month. I think that people in The Hague also need to realize that it must be feasible for the organization during implementation. Whether that concerns government organizations or the business sector. But we also still have to work all of this out together. You also need to watch out because I see a sign. Before you have to interrupt for a moment. Uh oh, the microphone is coming out of there. Oh, sorry. You may, uh, stand and look . Microphone is off. Help with the microphone. It is absolutely true that a great many laws have not been implemented. Um, maybe that is also because it is sometimes started a bit late. I hear that certain municipalities have not even started implementing the legislation stemming from the two. We won't know that for another five years or so. Um, the second thing is the whining. Because I really think it's whining that so many laws are coming. The structure originating from Europe is crystal clear. It's the same every time . And there is a, uh, there is a distinction in level in the legislation, uhm, what you need to do. And hey, it goes up a layer every time. If you want to know what the congregation must do in 5 years , you must start reading the Torah now. Then you know exactly. So I find the rush in aviation to be a problem, and the rules are constantly changing as well. You don't hear anyone complaining, because they understand very well. And then it breaks. [Applause] And and so I completely agree with because you can know. we only notice in practice that there uh for the implementing organizations—and we are talking briefly about both the large implementing organizations such as a uh an SVB or a UV or a RUO, but also uh municipalities, water boards, provinces and the business sector in sorry COA Cola Koa uh yes and there are many more uh abbreviations. No, but the point is that I agree with Breno that it could be possible. You just see that things run incredibly sluggishly in practice because that is precisely where a piece of expertise is lacking, and because legislators and lawmakers do not always consider how different laws fit together and interact with one another. And I believe that we, as policymakers, have the responsibility to do better in that regard as well . Okay. Is that you? Do you have a round of applause? Yes. Okay. Uh sorry, we are going for the proposition, but there is a lot to say about it, but I would like to discuss a few things for uh the next proposition. And I will try to repeat it once, so that you remember what the thesis was again. I only just managed to get my love in the picture , but that didn't quite work out. The following statement is about Cloud Coatwijk. And uh, is that about a separate matter behind the dikes, or loss, uh, remain loss, or take loss, keep taking loss, keep taking loss. Well, cloud or not, Bert, can you explain that in detail? It's stated there. Yes, I hadn't counted on this. Uh look, we were climbing onto a situation where the Dutch government is highly prepared to place 100% of its new projects in America, and where it would become impossible for the Ministry of Finance to even send an email to the Dutch Central Bank without permission, without permission from America, and without the knowledge of America. That is really very strange when you can get the Americans on board with your own communication all day long . Well, we are heading towards that a little less rapidly, but only slightly less rapidly. And at one point I said, isn't it madness that we, as a country or even as a continent, are saying, "Look, we ca n't actually talk to each other anymore, except through America." And that if we want to send a private message, we will have to find an old typewriter in an archive and send someone out on a motorcycle to deliver the message. My position at the time was that this cannot go on any longer. We must have a plan B. Something that at least still works if the really big American one stops working . Um, the House of Representatives adopted that motion. The Cabinet said: "Yes, great, we'll do it." And uh, and later they did ask you to keep quiet for a moment, mind you, but let's... Yeah, Bert, what, what are we actually supposed to do then? Well, I didn't have the answer to that either , so that is a good question. But I do think that we, as Europe, cannot say: "Yeah, uh, we've become so addicted to American stuff. We've just given up." And so we must find our way back. [Applause] I feel like I have a pretty good idea of what's going on in the room. And also a bit of a murmur that I know what I read here, well, and maybe it is there, uh, where, right, I would formulate it as the statement . Um, if I formulate the proposition that we just keep the cloud in, simply continue using Microsoft, Google, and everything else for the government. That's fine. Is any of you there? Exciting. I see someone who hasn't been working very much yet . I want to know the time, or what do you think? Should we build that pass ourselves? Of course we should build it ourselves, and of course we should just do that as soon as possible. And it really is just 5 right now, and I still do n't understand why we haven't taken action . I think perhaps we shouldn't do this solely from the Netherlands, but should perhaps tackle it at a European level. It would be very nice if there was a choice, so that there isn't just one package, service, or service provider listed. But that a range emerges by the age of 30 from which you, as an organization, the business community, or the government, can choose. Um, um, uh, that would be a beautiful ideal . But it is going to be a lot of hassle. Everyone is used to Microsoft; everyone likes working with it. [Applause] The people around me, huh . You are saying that wrong. Everyone is used to working around things. Not just " if only" but still being able to... The Netherlands can build Europe a cloud that is functional, so that we can continue sharing great documents. Yes, absolutely. The technology is there. is very easy to organize. You can simply get most main products from the internet. That is really a matter of doing it. And what's more, what's more, why do they keep comparing themselves to everything Microsoft or 356 has built? Why ca n't we come up with something better ? But I'll pick you up at the American station. [Applause] We're just going to do that. Why is that, uh, need? Don't believe this one. Is he doing it now? Yes, then it is the counter-question. Has the political reach reached 50 billion per year there? Yes , absolutely. I think this is the point I actually want to make regarding the performance, but it fits in here too. Is this a difference between principles and the practice of politics? Because in principle , saying it out loud is nice and logical. When you have to prove it in practice , things get incredibly hot again. Well, I have thought about it. We can solve this problem with a single clause in every government tender . Anyone who offers a government service or who offers a service to a government registers and is not subject to U.S. regulations or other regulations that require access to another country . We can seriously write that down in one sentence . However, the consequence of this is so far-reaching that we have to rebuild our entire architecture system and that the costs are mounting. And so we dare to rattle off the consequences of those of the principle. Well, so in Dutch politics it is easy to say: "Yes, we choose the principle." Utterly uttered, but maybe not so very much. Well, that is exactly the situation we are in right now . We are looking at the baseline information security for governments. Uh, it is a beautiful principle that all governments must have taken basic measures for digital security . But we also agreed: "Yes, it is a principle, but it is also comply or explain." So if you try your best, it's really good enough. I may nod very hard at you. Yes, I also don't know where to begin in this whole discussion, because this... Yes, we've been talking about this for years . Uh, it's not called Cloud Kotwijk for nothing in the uh, we used to have Radio Klootwijk. And why? Because our radio had made it to the roadworks. We were no longer allowed to communicate. Then the Netherlands said, a small uh village in resistance said a world-class sort of, right ? About, approximately. We are making our own uh radio connection. We have now done that here on the premises as well. We have Loren Brian and say. But we can do this. We are a tech. We have developed an incredible amount in the Netherlands. Uh, I think WiFi comes from here, and some other inventions. Bluetooth, we really are smart. And I think you have to start small, but think big. So start covering with that cloud Kootwijk. Put your money where it is, because everyone finds it important. And here they just say, of course we're going to give 50 billion. Well, I wish you all the best. I was in that room, not even €10 could be spent on anything . So, have a nice match, but anyway. I say that we just need to stop talking about it for a change. We just have to start building. We are here at a big hacking conference where SOWS are all building things. We build the most bizarre things. I am standing at the back of the field where tonight with all kinds of fire and we have built a whole fire out of real fire. We can do that together . We can also just start a nice home. Stop talking. And yes, we are going to begin. We are going to begin. [Applause] I agree, I am thoroughly with what we are going to do. But the ground I wanted to break for a moment was for, once again, not us as organizations and governments, but all those ordinary people in the country who need to understand what they should make use of, what they can choose from. If I compare it for a moment to the product safety of children's toys, you have to understand that some products are made with safe paint, and that if you buy from them, you might already be poisoning your child. We really have it. So we have to say no if we have to do it. I had that more often just now, you know . Does anyone have something to say about it? Certainly has something, definitely, definitely has something to say about that. Because, of course, it starts with education. Uh, we used to always have those Postbus 51 commercials. Well, then everyone had learned that they should n't do something. What Bronel has already said about 25 times. And he is right about that too . We create legislation. We believe that children need to learn. We believe that adults should keep to the right. And everyone feels like it's way too complicated. And that starts with politicians who constantly, in every debate, two or three people show up, which, well, is practice. So it's all too complicated. Then things are said: "Oh, this isn't about me." The government, because we were just talking about government... outsourcing, tendering, you name it. But something is also going on internally within the government. We spend I don't know how much money on Microsoft and it just has us by the throat. As a government, we cannot even stop because they have completely encapsulated us, and warnings have been issued for years. So we can say all the time: "Everyone in the Netherlands just needs to, uh, figure out how technology works." No, it starts with. For once, you make sure you start regulating. Make sure those big companies stop us from coming to catch us at the Schotte. I think one once said and so I did n't say one but said and. And I think we need to reflect on the fact that in this digital world it is much more difficult—well, when it comes to physical products, we can control the channels through which people can obtain those products much better together than in the digital world. So how am I going to... my question is actually how are we going to make sure that uh I see you uh calm down [ __ ]. Well, you yourself give some examples from Theu. We are not very good at regulating where people get their physical belongings from, but perhaps we should. Because the rule that toys may not contain toxic paint exists, and they are allowed to sell them here, so you can get them. Maybe we should do something about that. You are not. So I do agree with that. That is precisely the point where I say that we, as politicians, must take a stand on what we allow and what we do not allow. Where do we draw the line? Where are we performing? Where do we enforce? How do we ensure that the norms and values we consider important are actually implemented? Yes, I think I think I am stuck somewhere in the broken record, because I hear in the time we have to come up with all sorts of things, we all do things and then do them. But I think we have devised excellent legislation, excellent legal systems together. The only thing that needs to happen is for someone to enforce this. And that just absolutely never happens. And no no no no uh we were just played ourselves here. [Music] Is he doing it? I think I 'll ask the question again after all. So, are you prepared to set up a very large enforcement organization? More money is going to that short, and then we'll just go to the hall. You don't need to organize your own large organization for this. There are other solutions; if you look at other countries, how do they organize themselves when they have a huge disadvantage in another market? That is how you need to organize it. Okay . A good example is a country that said: "Guys, we are lagging behind on this technology . I am making so many billions of euros available. You are going to, uh, uh, you can bid on that. You are going to develop this. We are going to do it, and we will let you go." Uh, 200 organizations get to do it, and the best 10 that survive get to have the market. That is a good way to ensure that you, so to speak, organize technology in your country. But you do have to do this together. And just a short break. We're just going to catch the crook. Then we're going... I see a very... question here, so uh... let's go. I don't know where. It all sounds really beautiful, doesn't it? It is all absolutely true. But the question remains about Ronet itself. And then, where are we going, and what are we going to do then? What are we going to do then? [Music] Come. The microphone has a microphone dourt, if I'm not mistaken . Yes, we'll keep what we're going to do ready for now while we try. We are first going to look at, well, what the critical infrastructure is— what we say is—if we do n't have that under control after a while and it starts to falter, then the plan is going to be a real mess. We are going to start with that. We are going to build that ourselves. That is the short term. In the long term, we look at the Eurostack, and then, as is already happening throughout Europe, we look at what each country is good at, and we will fully focus on that so that we achieve digital autonomy in the long run . But that weather does n't like to say in the short term: Cloud Kotwijk, what are we really dependent on, and we are going to start with that right now. Step-by-step . Let's see... uh, we'll just keep going for a bit . Everyone here has a microphone, because I see the governing body of the Dutch municipality has something to say. Uh, there is a microphone. Oh, here is the microphone. I just want to say something about handling. Yes. Okay . I would like to say a few things about enforcement and string a few things together. Rus has just spoken about legislation coming to the Netherlands and to all member states. Cohesion in that and the manner of, uh, feasibility, you know. I consider that very important from the perspective of the duty of care . Is it feasible? Is it feasible and affordable together? Well, then in the Netherlands we see that this is delegated to various ministries, and various ministries are also setting up their own supervisory bodies. To give an example, the NIS 2 you just mentioned is being developed in the Netherlands by the Ministry of Justice in collaboration with the Ministry of the Interior. The Ministry of Interior determines that the government falls under its full scope. That is public administration, but there are a number of direct, uh, let's call them domains , processes underneath, such as, uh, in the public domain, that is, uh, uh, yeah, such as, uh, uh, everything with traffic systems, water, all water. Uh, those are all separate domains that the municipality is also involved in. And those will all become separate intermediate holders. And uh, so we are now operating in a sort of compliance swamp. And my question is: will that make us safer as the Netherlands? A compli also uh uh sets its own rules uh uh just ask. So my question is, if we are talking about what we can regulate from a political perspective? How can we make it feasible ? And how can we ensure that for the municipalities that indeed know that this knowledge is coming—that it is explorably feasible—it is not affordable. We aren't getting a single cent for carrying it out. And uh yes, and that we then have to be able to do so in coherence . And then we can also look at new solutions together. Like noise, a new solution arising from collectivization. We need to leave a law [Music] for a moment because we are going to the last statement, because I think if we try to answer this question well we will be at the end of this session in no time. I would still very much like to implement a dismay. But not before we ask online one more time has geek. Is there still a sprint left? Yes yes yes yes definitely. Uh, then questions keep coming in via mnot.nl/debat. And uh, if we keep going for just a moment, we'll be at 100 questions. That is also a nice little alarm going on, very wrong to most of them now... well, I have to ask it anyway on behalf of the audience, for everyone here on the stage, just a quick question, and that might also be very important for the future. Is there really expertise present in every political party present here ? People with a background and a solid education in privacy and security? Because we think we are going to need it badly in the coming years. Yes. No, are politicians, do they even understand anything about this at all? That they studied something else, security. Let's just take a look at who is currently in the House, because I mean, the majority of the parties are not in the House at the moment. At this moment, through our digicon, we support our thematic community and our European thematic support for Mariek. And I myself now stand as cybersecurity, and whether you look at the whole thing, uh, is there enough of a package in those parties. Uh no, but you can already see that after the turnout in the debates in the permanent chamber's digital affair. What to do then? The turnout. So which parties are present at all at debates of the Standing Chamber on digital affairs? That already shows that everything is in order. Not last time, I think there were five parties present. Was the tourist information office? They aren't present here either . VVV. Yes, I think it was there . WW I think uh no WW. Well no, no, not NC. Yes , NC does. Yes. Andar seniaren, yes, but well, this is Frisian time again. Of course I want that commission. Yes, that one , we're moving on. Uh, short, short response. Moving on to, I think . Yes, mine works. So what ? You know, I've had this discussion for a very long time. I became a former chamberlain in 2012. I had all the expertise, and I was simply dismissed as a privacy issue. Crazy that internet lunatic who said every proposal I submitted was too difficult and they didn't understand it. Um, so the question is, do you really need to put experts in the room? Now I stand outside the chamber and I am being asked for advice by almost all of these parties, and I give advice, and then I hear MPs saying things that make me very happy, because they are actually my own words, often, so yeah, but then I think, let's all just stand around it. I mean, it is very easy for the police to happen to me for quite a long time. Um, I am now in a more luxurious position again because I have, uh, placed myself outside of it , more as an advisor. But I do think that is important. So we can, because you can't know everything about every subject. What I find really important, and I agree with you on this, is that there is such a debate and it is about our fundamental digital rights, and there are three or four parties involved. That my heart, my digital heart, helps there, then simply. Yes, so then we are sure. In any case, there is more attention. So that's it. There is more attention, but it also depends on us; we are voters, right? So we really need to take a look at who is actually on the committee. Who really speaks on my behalf? Who actually says the right things? You don't have to agree with it . Then you don't vote for it. But I 'm done with party voting. I only vote for people. So maybe still . Maybe it's to do more volunteer work, right? local politician with knowledge and who knows, uh, right? And I'll just do it quickly—we've shortened it, a good 10 minutes for the last statement, so we'll go through it fast. But I also just want to, uh, open it for a moment. calls it Crypto 2.0. But anyway, uh yeah, we're going to Rosalie, another proposition is: encryption is too strong. The government must be able to access our devices. Rosalie van Beet van Zord je toe. Yes. Um, it's uh great. I actually hear two things. Yes. Grypty too strong. Well, quantum computing is coming. So, well, that's a bit of a thing you're dealing with. Um yes, that is the first question you have to sit down with. What is the vision and what is being done with it? Yes, how do you want to pre-rain that. Do you only want the side of things with that, but yeah, is it strong, yes or no? And do they really need to be included ? Do we want to give the government the power— essentially the master key—to buy access to your devices? Is that really responsible, and do we want that? But is it the kind of explanation from the government that is currently not yet on our devices? The government further devices. What is the status now, I think? It is simply empty words for the masters. You're not allowed to just join in, but it is more like, yeah, do we just want that, yeah, no wait, do you guys not understand what uh? No, it was just a uh, you know, okay. Oh, I think Ko said it’s with Microsoft now, isn't it? Yeah, says the government, or at least the US government, can also use our devices. Um, do you want anything else? Yes. Yes, you could say America or other companies can indeed join, but it is about the fact that the government is allowed to be involved. Anyway, we have a situation where the government, police, and the informants who are allowed to step in by phone. Yes, there are also for our digital traffic, yes, they have to be for our safety, right? Who knows, uh, maybe the police, maybe the security services will have to start watching again. Is that uh that is a very good is a good police. Yes. Okay . Uh, not where your pirates are? Yes. Start there. Uh, secure communication is just, let's say, important for whistleblowers, for journalists, for litigants, for lawyers who want to communicate safely with clients, and for a healthy democratic debate where people feel free to discuss things without being afraid . Uh uh for activists and outside uh as uh fact as a mut happy. It says what I mean. I think that I think that this one this is uh Ren Oh, you get that other microphone with it. That, uh, that other song. Yeah . And uh no, [Applause] you have, you have of course had that dragnet uh that we successfully brought up, at least the referendum that too little has been done with yet. Uh, you have chat control, which we have blocked several times. Um, but what, uh, now again? Uh, there's another vote on it in October. Um, we are very happy that the NVD is now also saying: "It is life-threatening to uh break encryption uh or find ways to circumvent it. Uh, but a whole lot of other member states that uh, while the new chat control proposal is really a lot more serious than uh the previous one just a day. Well, so it is uh uh, do you know people in those countries, do you have contacts with politicians there? Uh, be sure to let them know that it is important to uh take a stand against chat control. Um, yes, no, I think then I think it is clear. I also think for whom I actually wonder is that someone who thinks that the government should be able to empathize more, both in the room and on the stage? Who is in favor of the government being able to empathize more? Is anyone in favor of more government ours? No. Okay. Gets I think that we must respect the rule of law . So chat control or any of the building in of backdoors is a violation of our human rights. European hope for human rights has long since made statements about that. So that he in a democratic constitutional state The fact that the world pavilion is lying there is a disgrace. And at the same time, things are happening for which it is good that the government can indeed look at individuals based on the protection of the judiciary and the rule of law. Gosh, did you really have such bad ideas that it is good that the government intervenes, but that is based on individual aspects in which the rule of law may do its work in certain cases. Ministers of Light may indeed get involved. Just now, no one's hand was on it, was early on or over and more were allowed to look along, but still, it is already lame. It is different. It is different. Okay, just explain to me for a moment how it is different. Who explains this to me? Okay, Erik. House. That is something we do want. But want people to have houses invaded ? But waiting in, that is something you just do n't want at all. Not. No, but if there is someone you suspect committing a crime, and you say we are going to do a house for that. Then you go into the house and then you try to make as much noise as possible . But also, uh, the physical house, but also the digital house. Oh dear. No. Is that that The proposition? The physical. Well, the digital home. If it is secured, then that isn't possible . But okay, I'm going to try to make the comparison a bit, uh, everyday, domestic way. We have letters. Yes. Uh, and the new proposal says: "No, we are not breaking the letter secrecy." We are not forwarding the letter. "We're just looking over your shoulder while you write it." And why is this such a good comparison? You are allowed to open mail in case of suspicion under many conditions, but then you are simply allowed to open the letter. If we make this comparison, everyone understands what it is again. Because a government looking over your shoulder while you write a confidential letter—none of us want that. So we don't want—understand that correctly. We don't want the government watching while you receive the letter. At what moment do you send it? And again, at the moment—at that moment—at the moment that you are concretely a suspect in the investigation—it may be opened under all kinds of conditions. That is exactly the comparison you are making. But how do you do that then? That isn't possible. But that is simply not possible. No. Yes, so so that is not possible here. And in a constitutional state, that is too bad, then no one for someone else. Yes. Yes. Okay. Very much so. Uh um well look if you want moderation. We'll make a closing round of this. I will look at it when he is talking about and then uh we are with the enemy, we are up to date. I think the explanation just now was very clear and indeed too bad it was removed. Only I am looking a bit further than today. Tomorrow there is simply a quantum world where we really have to start thinking about what encryption means. And [Applause] I'm sorry I don't want to keep too much to myself, [ __ ], but I'm going to do it now anyway. Uh we have the post. Oh, okay. Thank you. Uh the [ __ ]. Uh we have the quantum computer. One it does n't exist, but anyway imagine that it does exist. We have had post-quantum encryption for a long time. So uh signal signal uh has nothing on the post side either and the quantum computer can't do anything with it. So everyone who starts talking about quantum computer who says: "It's all going to change." They don't have the attitude of saying thank you very much. I think the explanation you surrounded is clear. Under no circumstances do you want the government looking over your shoulder at everything you are writing, so that they could proactively see if you might be able to do something. going to do what is not allowed. That is not okay. But if you are the subject of suspicion and those safeguards that have all been reserved, it is completely justified that intervention takes place . Um, why, what also applies there—but we have talked about that before—is that we therefore have to ensure that we have the right expertise and the right people sitting within those intelligence services, security services who are capable of being smarter than the crook. Because otherwise, we will lay that. So we need wishes on the right side of the law. And that also applies to ethical hackers or other experts who help us to be able to act even in those difficult digital cases . Yes, thank you. Then you are sold, one minute. Last comment. Yes, when regulating digital technology, you shouldn't just look from the perspective of the sort of controlling government of what we do and don't want in society. But you need to have that hacker mindset of how this technology can also be used for a different purpose than what it is intended for. And then it turns out when it comes to police files, when it comes Regarding backdoors, that weak stuff is always a bad idea. Uh, I'm just going to defend the police, because it is said they need to be smarter. But we have known incredibly smart people working in the government who also think very smartly about encryption. And that's absolutely true, it does make your work a bit more complicated sometimes, but they are super smart in online research, forensic research, and what they don't know, they get from this community. Because in the Netherlands, we have incredibly great cooperation between the government and the hacker community. Because I just heard someone say, "As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't exist ." You are the hacker or you are a [ __ ] criminal. That is what you think. You have made your point about this too. Do you have anything else to add? Pirate Party today. Think about it for a moment, you too. I'll just repeat what I just said. Love a politician. They mean well. Please help raise the level of the subject to the right level . The fact that there is a committee with too few people on it . The fact that at Radio Kotwijk they have no idea have. But what do we really need to do? Uh, we police need help. We even enjoy being helped. So please, love the politician. A [Applause] discount on the last point. Surveillance is much more efficient than mass surveillance anyway. So first go look at where we are actually going to keep an eye on people and take a look at that. Uh, other things I'm going to talk about for a moment, because regarding enforcement, you need enforcement capacity and you have to do things in-house, so that you do n't get blackmailed by big companies and that you don't, uh, that you do n't have to enforce on them too strictly because otherwise they might fire you. Yes, let's place a country for bids. All sorts of country, uh, the Hendr naturally always has a lot to say about The Hague, but there aren't municipal elections after that. And my appeal to all of you would be: please become active locally. Get involved locally in your own municipality, in your own area. Because a lot of what needs to become digital influence in society simply happens on the ground at the municipality. So sign up on. Join in. What, what is the feeling online? What was, what was alive? Well, the feeling eh in the room that eh actually did sense a bit when you hear people speaking, but I also have a whole weekend of questions that might add a little extra to that. I think it will be fun. We have now lost a number of races to the US, the media race, the cloud race, the race we are SVP losing. But historically speaking, we in Europe are good at writing good laws. Shouldn't we then, just like your letter regarding end-to-end encryption, apply a fundamental right ? what I think of what the politicians. We are not going to find that out right now , because we are past our time. May I ask for a warm round of applause [Applause] ? Oh yes, and of course a warm and hearty round of applause, leader. [Applause] Thank you all very much for coming and for your enthusiastic reactions, and until the next session.