Trevor Paglen: Well, thank you guys so much for being here and thank you for the World Economic Forum for invit­ing me. I’m Trevor Paglen and I do lots of pre­pos­ter­ous things. Really. I’m an artist, and you know, one of the things I real­ly want out of art, what I see the job of the artist to be is to try to learn how to see the his­tor­i­cal moment that you find your­self liv­ing in, right.

I mean that very sim­ply and I mean it very lit­er­al­ly. How do you see the world around you? And this is hard­er to do than it might seem in many times. The world around us is a com­pli­cat­ed place. There’s all kinds of struc­tures and forms of pow­er that are very much a part of our every­day lives that we rarely notice.

And one of the things I’ve been work­ing on for fif­teen years or so is look­ing at the world of sens­ing. Looking at the world of…you know, look­ing at the kind of planetary-scale struc­tures that we’ve been build­ing that facil­i­tate telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions, but at the same time are also instru­ments of mass sur­veil­lance. It’s some­thing I’ve tak­en a real­ly close look at over the years.

When we talk about sur­veil­lance I think a lot of us have the idea oh, there’s the secu­ri­ty cam­eras and then there’s some­body stand­ing behind all the mon­i­tors and look­ing and see­ing what’s going on. That image is over. It does­n’t work any­more. Right now the cam­eras them­selves are doing the oper­a­tions. In oth­er words, you have a traf­fic cam­era; that cam­era can detect if some­body is doing some­thing wrong and auto­mat­i­cal­ly issue a tick­et. So we’re build­ing these autonomous sur­veil­lance sys­tems that actu­al­ly inter­vene in the world.

And a lot of peo­ple are say­ing that like by 2020 there’ll be a tril­lion sen­sors on the sur­face of the Earth that are able that are able to do this kind of thing. So this is some­thing that’s very much trans­form­ing not only the sur­face of the Earth but our every­day lives as well.

When we look at what these plan­e­tary infra­struc­ture look like, on the left we see an image of what Google’s glob­al infra­struc­ture looks like; on the right we see the National Security Agency’s glob­al infra­struc­ture as of 2013. The point is these are lit­er­al­ly tech­no­log­i­cal sys­tem that envel­op the Earth.

So one project that I’ve been doing is just try­ing to go to the places where these sys­tems come togeth­er. Where does this infra­struc­ture kind of con­geal in very spe­cif­ic places? A real­ly impor­tant part of glob­al telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions is choke points, places where transcon­ti­nen­tal fiber optic cables come togeth­er. What are the places where the con­ti­nents are con­nect­ed to one anoth­er? These are real­ly impor­tant to telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions but also obvi­ous­ly very impor­tant to surveillance—you sit on these places, you can col­lect most of the data that’s going through the Earth’s telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions sys­tems.

What do these look like? Well this is a place in Long Island, one of these sites. One in north­ern California at Point Arena. The west coast of Hawaii. Guam is real­ly impor­tant to this kind of thing. Marseille, in France. And what do you see in the image? Nothing, right. The point of these images is these are some of the most sur­veilled places on Earth. These are lit­er­al­ly kind of like, core parts of glob­al telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions and sur­veil­lance infrastructure—there’s no evi­dence what­so­ev­er that that’s going on in the pho­tos of these kind of places. So what does that tell us kind of alle­gor­i­cal­ly about how some of these infra­struc­tures and sys­tems work?

I did start push­ing this a lit­tle bit fur­ther. I want­ed to say well, the­o­ret­i­cal­ly there should be these con­junc­tions of cables in these bod­ies of water in these images. And so I learned how to scu­ba dive in a swim­ming pool in sub­ur­ban Berlin, as you do, and start­ed going out and study­ing nau­ti­cal charts and under­sea maps to try to find places on the con­ti­nen­tal shelf where I could maybe see these.

Going out with teams of divers, when you do every­thing right you find images like this. As you can see, there’s dozens and dozens of Internet cables mov­ing across the floor of the ocean.

These are cables that con­nect the East Coast of the United States to Europe.

Now, when we’re talk­ing about plan­e­tary sur­veil­lance sys­tems, AKA plan­e­tary telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions sys­tems, they’re not only envelop­ing the Earth like in a series of cables and hard­ware and infra­struc­ture. They’re also in the skies above our heads. Every minute of every hour there are hun­dreds and hun­dreds of satel­lites over our heads. One project I’ve been doing, again, over many many years, is try­ing to track and pho­to­graph all of the secret satel­lites in orbit around the plan­et, all the unac­knowl­edged satel­lites.

This is done using data from ama­teur astronomers. Amateur astronomers go out, they see some­thing in the sky, they look it up in a cat­a­log, it’s not there, they know they’ve seen a secret satel­lite. Usually an American mil­i­tary or intel­li­gence satel­lite. They write down what they saw. What I can do is I can take that obser­va­tion, mod­el the orbit, make a pre­dic­tion about where some­thing will be, and then using tele­scopes and kind of computer-guided mounts, I can pin­point the place in the sky where I think it’ll be. And if you do every­thing right, which is rare, you get an image like this.

An this line here is the streak of some­thing called the X‑37B, for exam­ple. This is an American secret space drone that’s cur­rent­ly on its fourth mis­sion. The X‑37B.

So I get into the cul­ture a lit­tle in these things. This is from the crew patch of the guys that fly this thing. And this is the pro­gram office that con­trols it, an out­fit called the Rapid Capabilities Office, who have this mot­to here in Latin, Opus Dei blah blah blah, doing God’s work with oth­er peo­ple’s mon­ey.” So this is kind of a glimpse into the cul­ture of this kind of stuff.

So the point is like, we have sur­veil­lance sys­tems that exist at the scale of the plan­et, that lit­er­al­ly envel­op the sur­face of the Earth and lit­er­al­ly envel­op the heav­ens above the Earth. But these scale down in var­i­ous ways. These are also artic­u­lat­ed of course at the scales of cities, down to the scales of liv­ing rooms, down to the scales of our bod­ies, down to the scales even of our thoughts and the ques­tions that we ask.

One of the set of tools that I’ve been devel­op­ing in the stu­dio for the last cou­ple years, a set of tools that allow us to make images that show us what a com­put­er vision sys­tem might see as it looks in the world, what a neur­al net­work might see as it looks to the world. In oth­er words tools that make us images show­ing us what autonomous sens­ing sys­tems are actu­al­ly per­ceiv­ing when they look out at the world.

This for exam­ple is an image of the US/Mexico bor­der. And for those of you that don’t know this already there is a wall already. And what we’re see­ing is the bor­der and over­laid on top of the bor­der, we’re see­ing a vision of what the bor­der looks like as seen through com­put­er vision sys­tems that are used to detect motion, detect anom­alies. You know, we’re see­ing the bor­der as well through these sys­tems that sur­veil it.

A phe­nom­e­non that’s been going on for a while is ALPR, auto­mat­ic license plate track­ing. These are sys­tems that take pic­tures of every sin­gle car that dri­ves by on on a city street, is able to autonomous­ly read the num­ber of that car, and either put that in a data­base that the police or law enforce­ment have access to or again, issue things like traf­fic cita­tions based on that. All with­out human inter­ven­tion.

The same thing is start­ing to come online with police body cam­eras, which are now being out­fit­ted with facial recog­ni­tion tech­nol­o­gy to do some­thing sim­i­lar.

One of the tools that we have in the stu­dio is the abil­i­ty to make por­traits of what peo­ple look like as they are seen by facial recog­ni­tion soft­ware. And we’ve been run­ning these on por­traits of rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies and philoso­phers from the past. The left is the great post-colonial philoso­pher Frantz Fanon as seen through facial recog­ni­tion soft­ware. On the right is Simone Weil.

This is also obvi­ous­ly hap­pen­ing in the com­mer­cial space. You go to a mod­ern super­mar­ket, there are autonomous sys­tems iden­ti­fy­ing you, try­ing to under­stand when the last time you were there was, how much mon­ey you spent. What are you look­ing at? What’s your emo­tion­al state? What’re you inter­est­ed in?

And they’re get­ting more and more inti­mate. Sensing sys­tems look­ing at what kind of food do we eat? Are we going to the gym? You know, are we in good health? How are we behav­ing? Are we drink­ing too much? Do we smoke cig­a­rettes? What kind of objects are in our hous­es and what does that say about who we are?

We’re at a point now where Google or Facebook or Amazon lit­er­al­ly knows more about me and my his­to­ry than I know about myself. And what are some of the impli­ca­tions of that? How do we think through that? What does that mean? What do we see when we actu­al­ly look through these kinds of sens­ing sys­tems?

Well one thing that I think becomes very obvi­ous when you spend some time with it is I think there’s a kind of pop­u­lar idea out there that oh, tech­nol­o­gy is neu­tral, it’s just how you use it. And I want to counter that. I want to say there’s no such thing as tech­nol­o­gy detached from how you use it. And so when you use it, and when you deploy these kinds of sys­tems, any kind of sens­ing tech­nol­o­gy sees through the eyes of the forms of pow­er that it’s designed to ampli­fy. The forms of pow­er that it’s designed to exer­cise, whether that is mil­i­tary pow­er, or law enforce­ment, or com­mer­cial pow­er, etc. I think that’s one thing that you start to see.

And this brings up a lot of con­cerns for me. I wor­ry about what the future of these kind of plan­e­tary autonomous sens­ing sys­tems are. I wor­ry that they have a ten­den­cy to kind of repro­duce the kinds of racism, and patri­archy, and inequal­i­ty that’ve char­ac­ter­ized so much of human his­to­ry. I’m also con­cerned that they rep­re­sent enor­mous con­cen­tra­tions of pow­er in very few places.

I said at the begin­ning of the talk that one of the things I want out of art is things that help us see the his­tor­i­cal moment that we live in. How do we learn to see the world? But there’s some­thing else that I want out of art as well. I want some­thing that helps us see a world that we want to live in. And if you want to see that world you have to ask your­self what do you want? And so I spend a lot of time look­ing at these tech­nolo­gies and ask­ing myself how would I want them to be dif­fer­ent? What world do I want to live in?

I want to live in a world in which arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence has become decou­pled from its mil­i­tary his­to­ries, from its com­mer­cial his­to­ries, from its law enforce­ment appli­ca­tions and so on and so forth. So I start­ed build­ing very irra­tional neur­al net­works. Neural net­works that instead of being able to ana­lyze your face and detect­ing what emo­tion you might be in, that look around at the world and see lit­er­a­ture. In this case this is an AI that sees omens and por­tents, and this is an image it syn­the­sized of a comet, or a rain­bow.

This is an image that it syn­the­sized of a vam­pire. This was an AI that was trained to see mon­sters that have his­tor­i­cal­ly been alle­gories for cap­i­tal­ism.

Histories of war­fare or fan­tas­tic images.

I want an Internet…I want glob­al telecom­mu­ni­ca­tions sys­tems that are not the great­est instru­ments of mass sur­veil­lance in the his­to­ry of the world. What would that look like? So I start­ed build­ing com­mu­ni­ca­tions hard­ware for muse­ums in the form of sculp­tures that cre­ate open WiFi net­works. But instead of track­ing all the data of all the peo­ple that con­nect to them, it does the exact oppo­site. It anonymizes the iden­ti­ties of peo­ple con­nect­ing to the net­work and encrypts all the traf­fic so that nobody can see what peo­ple are doing when they’re using the Internet in a muse­um.

I want space flight that’s decou­pled from the his­to­ries of nuclear war and the mil­i­tary his­to­ries asso­ci­at­ed with it, even the kind of colo­nial imag­i­na­tions asso­ci­at­ed with it. So I start­ed build­ing a satel­lite. This is a project called Orbital Reflector that’s due to launch this sum­mer between July and August. We just got our offi­cial launch let­ter yes­ter­day. This was com­mis­sioned by the Nevada Museum of Art. And all it is is a satel­lite goes up in space, what it does it deploys a giant mir­ror about thir­ty meters long, a hun­dred feet. What that mir­ror does is reflect sun­light down to Earth to cre­ate a new star in the sky. That lasts about two months and then it burns up harm­less­ly.

And so this ques­tion of what kind of world do we want to live in. Well, I want to live in a world that has more jus­tice, that has more equal­i­ty, and that has more beau­ty in it. And that is kind of why I try to do these pre­pos­ter­ous things. Thank you guys so much for com­ing.

Nicholas Thompson: So I will start with one thing that struck me while I was watching. When do you strive for beauty in your art, and when do you strive for banality?

Trevor Paglen: Yeah. That's a really good point, that's a really good point. You know, and when I'm making art, this is… I almost want to find out what something else wants to look like. And I know that sounds really mystical but usually the process that I have is I look at something and then I look at it again, I look at it again, I look at it again. And I wait for it and a kind of aesthetic language to emerge, like almost where it finds a form that it almost wants to be.

And I and I don't worry about that contradiction between beauty or you know… You know, people criticize me sometimes, saying, "Trevor, you take beautiful pictures of bad things," right. And my counter to that is you know, I'm not sure that that's how beauty works. I mean, I think we would all love to live in a world in which beautiful things were good and ugly things were bad. But I can tell you if you go out with a telescope and you look at the night sky and you're looking at the wonder of the cosmos, and then you see the tiny glint of a spy satellite flying through it, you will see nothing more beautiful in your life. Even though the politics of that are something we could have a debate about. And so I guess those kind of contradictions, I guess, I'm to inhabit.

Thompson: You stare at the cable or you stare at the surveillance station and then you think, "Does this thing want to be beautiful? Does this thing want to be…?"

Paglen: It's not that conscious, you know. You just work with the materials until you find something that speaks to you.

Thompson: Right. Okay. We have some excellent questions here. First one from Allison Martin. "When can surveillance be good for us? Crisis response, for instance. How do we balance the good with the less good?"

Paglen: Yeah…

Thompson: So if there's a disaster, we want to know where the building fell and find the people.

Paglen: No, absolutely. No, absolutely. I mean, you know, so I think of course— I mean, I think this is exactly the question I'm trying to ask, right, in the sense of we have these technologies. Technologies I will insist kind of amplify the forms of power in which—that they're deployed to do. So what places in society do we want to optimize? What places do we not want to optimize? I would argue we want to optimize energy efficiency, for example. That seems nobody wants argue with that, that'll help the planet. We can do that.

Do we want to optimize for…extracting money out of people? If you do that, then you're going to produce a system that does that. And so I think for me that's the big kind of question.

Thompson: I believe some of those companies might be here in Davos.

Paglen: Yeah, that's the whole entire premise—

Thompson: It's very successful business.

Paglen: Yeah, no. I mean, that's the premise of software platforms. That's the premise of a Google or a Facebook.

Thompson: But let's let's hang with the question a little bit longer. As you think about surveillance technology developing, how would you want to push it in a way that it ends up being used more for good causes than for causes you see as bad?

Paglen: Yeah. You know, I think—

Thompson: How do push tech— I mean, one way to push technology is to show art of it and have us think about it and have conversations.

Paglen: Of course.

Thompson: But how else do you try to push technology?

Paglen: You know, I think it really does come down to this question of what world do I want to live in, right? And when I think about like the Internet, for example. I love the Internet. I use the Internet all the time. I want an Internet on one hand that's like a library. The library has two important parts of it. They're very important institutions to democratic societies for two reasons. One, you can look up anything that you want and get any kind of information you want. Two, equally important, the police don't get a record of the books that you checked out, right. And that's not…you know, Google doesn't get a record of…whoever.

And so I think about like those are kinds of institutions that I want. And so I guess I think the collective thing that we should all be doing as we are building this technosphere or whatever it is, is asking ourselves what do we want the world to look like? And where do we want to apply these kinds of technologies and sensing systems. And what kinds of places do we want to exempt from them? What are places in society that we actually don't want to optimize?

Thompson: This is a question that ties to that. We have a question now that came in through that feed from Zimbabwe. "Don't you think that surveillance actually assists the way of life for us, although it inconveniences a few?" And there is an argument—we were talking about this before, that actually getting lots of data on lots of people helps bring people into the financial system. It helps lots of people, particularly in developing countries. Is there…is surveillance something we worry about too much in the West, but actually it's beneficial for the world as a whole?

Paglen: Well, let's think about what the implications of that are, right. So, today the most obvious use of data collection is like, selling us stuff. So maybe they want to sell you Crocs and sell me like, motorcycle boots or whatever it is. And what have you. And we can argue about whether we like that or not. But as business models evolve, the point of any business, and you'd be negligent not to do that, would be to extract as much money out of the data that you're collecting as possible, in a kind of heavily capitalist system like the US.

And so what am I going to do with that data? Well, I'm going to figure out what's your lifestyle? Are you a healthy person or not? Then we'll sell that information to your health insurance company, and they might say, "Oh, you drank a Coke this week. That's gonna charge you and extra five bucks on your health insurance premium." And you can think about what the logical implications of that are. If you play that out, you are creating a society that whereby inequalities are going to become much more acute, on one hand. And you're going to create a society that ultimately is a lot more conformist, because there'll be serious consequences for doing stuff like I did as a teenager. Like, you screw up and and do weird stuff.

So you're going to fundamentally change what the culture is as well. And I worry that by not exempting parts of everyday life from surveillance or data collection, that the consequences are not going to really be a world that we all feel perfectly free in, honestly.

Thompson: One of the details I love about Trevor's life is that he lives in Berlin next to the old Stasi offices.

Paglen: It's true.

Thompson: We have another question, this one from Anonymous. "What is the one technology that worries you the most?"

Paglen: The one technology that worries me the most. I mean, I think right now it's probably like a combination of artificial intelligence plus capitalism, or plus state power. And what I mean by that is the ability to do stuff with massive data sets, right. So in the case of the US it's what we talked about with credit or health insurance or these kinds of ways in which our everyday lives, and our de facto liberties, are actually modulated, and whereby companies are incentivized to draw as much money out of us as possible. Or you have a society like the the system China's setting up now, this kind of social credit score system where the state becomes an institution that is using similar tools in order to regulate the kind of docility or conformity of a population.

Thompson: Is that was that worries you the most? The sort of… The system in China, which, cover story in Wired magazine if anybody's not familiar with it, last issue. PSA. Is that the…if you were to say of all the major projects in the world is it the surveillance system, the social credit score being built in China, the one that worries you the most?

Paglen: I think to me the social credit score system is the clearest distillation of what is happening in all surveillance platforms in general. So for those of you that are not familiar, the Chinese social credit score system is a system that surveils everything that you do and gives you kind of good points if you're kind of obedient and say nice things about the state and you pay your taxes, you go to work on time, whatever. A range—

Thompson: You lose five points if you interview Trevor Paglen on a stage…

Paglen: You lose social credit points—you know. And this has implications for what state services you're able to access, what schools you're able to go to, whether you can get a visa or not. You can get travel enhancements if you're good, and you can get travel restrictions if you're bad. And so it's a very obvious way in which you can see a society that has a kind of a strong centralized state wanting to maintain a population a certain way these kinds of tools to do that.

Thompson: [indicating his event badge]It's kind of like this, except the color keeps changing based on what you do here at the World Economic Forum.

Let me ask you about how, as you talk about the move towards AI, how that affects your art. Because if your art is photographing specific things, that's relatively discreet, right. You can photograph a satellite, a station, a cable. How do you deal with this new world we're going into where everything is going be inside of code? How will that affect your career as an artist?

Paglen: Yeah, it's been really interesting. The last couple of years I've been working a lot with AI and computer vision, and trying to— It's almost like going inside the cables themselves and trying to see what world lives in there. And obviously it's a world that has no analogue to our lived experience, our everyday life. Even to the point where you can't really understand what's going on in a neural network if you're building and you're a computer scientist. I mean, they're kind of famously inscrutable to humans.

So, I think the way that I have been trying to deal with that question in particular is you almost have to make almost a literary turn. You know, finding metaphors, finding allegories. That's kind of what I was doing with the AI, where I was training it to see images from Freud or Dante, or taxonomies of things that I would make up. And you try to find allegories.

Thompson: That's a way of seeing a new kind of AI. How do you explain how the inner AI of some of the surveillance companies, how do you explain how those work through art?

Paglen: I'm not sure that that's really what my job is as an artist, you know. I really think that my job isn't to explain to you so much as it is to create a series of images that you can use as kind of a vocabulary, a kind of cultural vocabulary, with which to try to have conversation. So I think it's an adjacent project to something like journalism or criticism or something like that. And in order to understand the world, we need language, we have logic, we make arguments on one hand, we have evidence and data. But also we experience the world through images, through culture, through music. And we kind of put all these together to form a worldview.

Thompson: And so why and how did you make this your job? How did you decide that explaining surveillance to the people through art? Because it's not like… You probably didn't study that in college.

Paglen: Well, I did study that in college. I have degrees in art and I have a degree in geography as well. And I think that doing this kind of work is…you just do it or you don't. I mean, I really feel like in terms of doing art, you either do it or you don't, you know.

Thompson: But you start with one project on surveillance. When did you decide that was going to be the thing that you would devote your life to?

Paglen: Yeah, I mean one project always turns into another one. So in the aughts I was doing a lot of work around the CIA and you know the war on terror and trying to understand that visual landscape of that as well as what's the relationship between secrecy, invisibility in that. And then as a result of that work I was brought on to do some work around the Edward Snowden project and the Citizenfour film, which turns into a project about NSA and global infrastructure. Then at some point you look back and say okay, this is what the NSA looks like but wait a minute. There's this bigger thing called Google, what's going on there? And so I think just one project always turns into another.

Thompson: So we have another question that's been upvoted. "What kind of technology do you use or avoid using as a private individual?"

Paglen: No, it's a really good question. So I use the same technology—I'm on Twitter. I've got the smartphone. There are… A lot of us imagine, you know— One of my pet peeves is when people say, "Well, we just give all our information to Google," or, "We just give all our information to Facebook. We just give all our information to Apple by having smartphones."

These are not systems that you can opt out of, right? I mean, in practical life, if you want to have a job, you have to have a smartphone. If you want to stay connected with your friends, you've got to have a Facebook account, etc. So I don't that submitting to these kinds of systems or having these systems be a part of your everyday life is something that you can opt out of as easily as— I don't actually think we have much choice in that.

Having said that, if I'm doing something like Googling questions I might have about my own personal health or about things like that, I'm going to use tools that encrypt that. So I'll use Tor for example to do that. I'll use Signal to communicate with other people. Just because I don't necessarily want that kind of thing to be in my metadata signature. So I think a lot about what that metadata signature looks like, and what I'm not so worried about, and things that I think down the line might have unintended consequences.

Thompson Right. One of my favorite tools to delimit that is software that will Google thousands and thousands of random phrases just to confuse your metadata signal.

Here's a pointed question. "Have you considered using your work to do good? Solve a crime and democratize access to technology. So it's not only for those who can afford them." So I think that's sort of the software you're creating, the tools you're creating.

Paglen: No, absolutely. So, I think in terms of doing good we always operate at the scale that we're able to operate in and using the institutions that we do. So I'm an artist. I work with museums. That's a place where I can make an intervention. So the software that we use is all open source and we publish the code and everything like that. But you operate within your sphere of influence, you know.

Thompson: I think you're doing good. We only have about two minutes so I want to ask you, you're about to launch a satellite!

Paglen: Yes.

Thompson: I think you might be the only guy in this room launching a satellite and we kinda just breezed past that. So please explain why you're launching a satellite, what the satellite is going to do, and when does it go.

Paglen: Yeah. So the satellite is a project commissioned by the Nevada Museum of Art. It's conceived of as an Earthwork. And Earthworks are traditionally big art projects that are out in the middle of the desert. You drive out there, you see it, it's a big artwork. And the Nevada Museum of Art, because there's a lot of the desert, they commission a lot of these things.

So this is commissioned as an Earthwork. It's a satellite that's a small satellite. It piggybacks, actually, on a spy satellite from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. It goes into orbit and then once it's in orbit in a 575 kilometer orbit, it opens up and it inflates a giant mirror, basically, in the shape of a diamond. About 100 feet long. And then as that mirror kind of goes through space it catches sunlight and reflects it down to Earth. And there's a window for a couple of hours after twilight and before dawn, if you look up in the sky you'll see the sunlight reflected off of this, and it will look like a star about as bright as one of the stars in the Big Dipper. And so there'll be a web site and an app where you can say, "I want to see this project," and it'll say, "Oh, you're in San Francisco. Go out at 8:15 tonight and look at this constellation, here's the extra star."

Thompson: So the point is just for us to be able to see it?

Paglen: That's the entire point. So the point of this satellite was to build a satellite that as much as possible had no military, scientific, or commercial function, right. So it was trying to build a satellite that as much as you possibly could was just an aesthetic object, and what's more to kind of mobilize the ingenuity of people in the aerospace industry towards that goal. And so in that sense I think of it, it's a preposterous object, or an impossible object. And I'm trying to make an object that kind of contradicts the logic of every other satellite that's ever been launched.

Thompson: Do you worry that you're going to…contradict some of the wonder we have when we look up at the sky? I think about my kids looking up at the sky, and it's like you seeing stars but you're also seeing Trevor Paglen's Earth project…

Paglen: Well, I think the bet is that having Trevor Paglen's art project in the sky gives you an excuse to take your kids out there and look at the sky.

Thompson: There you go. That's even better. Alright, thank you very much. I've got to—speaking of surveillance, go to three events hosted by Facebook. Thank you Trevor Paglen. I think he's awesome. I think his work is amazing. Thank you for being here. I very much enjoyed that conversation. Thank you for all the questions.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.