>> from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> our fundamental interest is democracy, the rule of rights, human rights and ukraine.

it is about setting the country on a democratic half for the future. >> we begin this evening with the unrest in ukraine. authorities seek the arrest of ousted president viktor yanukovych for mass murder. he is believed to be on the run after he fled his palace over the weekend. through ukrainian parliament has that been to fill the power vacuum. the collapse of government in ukraine as seen as a strategic setback for russia. president obama's national security of advisor said the move would be a grave mistake. joining us is john herbst. charles is a professor of

international relations at georgetown university and a senior counsel of the -- i am pleased to have all of them on the program at this critical moment. fiona hill, i begin with you. i would like -- where are we right now, how did we get there, and where are we going and what are the risks? start with why did this happen now and what is the moment that we are at now and where we are going? >> the precipitating event for the series of protests that have led us to the situation were triggered off by summits from the european union.

ukraine was scheduled to sign an agreement with the eu, an agreement of association and joining a free trade area. yanukovych decided against it. this is widely understood to be under pressure from russia, which was set, and a series of protests broke out in the hearts of kiev. they morphed into the huge scale demonstrations that we saw. there were protests against from yanukovych's decision and move to his rule and the whole system

of government in ukraine itself. the focus has been on the independent square in kiev. over the last couple of weeks, it has been that decision to use force to press and on the protesters that has triggered off the series of events that has led to international intervention and the removal of yanukovych. there've been efforts to put ukraine on the path to a piece revolution and to try to intentionally address many of the protesters' grievances about the system of government as a way of rebalancing the power between the president and parliament. where we are now is a. of great uncertainty. the agreement that was broken a

couple of days ago has fallen apart. the protests are continuing in the parliament is stepping back from this. now we have a system of government that is a work in progress. we are trying to decide what the next steps are. >> let's start with the russians. what might they do? >> there's awful lot of things the russians might do. first of all, this is not necessarily strategic. this is more a tactical deceit. he is a master of taking advantage of the situation and leveraging others. the significant thing about the

agreement that was brokered with the ukrainian opposition was that the russians initialed it and then the russian envoy fullback. >> what you think might be possible within ukrainian government from members of the opposition or former prime ministers or presidents or all the collection of people who want some voice in this? >> you have a large cadre of people in the opposition with experience in the government who could run the country. the question is whether or not the demonstrators will be satisfied with the cadre we are talking about. the demonstrators seem to understand that there is a corrupt political culture in the country. that is why yulia tymoshenko spent the last three years as a famous political prisoner. the times have called her as putin in a skirt.

>> not a good visual. what about europe? what impact and the european union ordered united states have on the events on the ground in the ukraine? >> first of all, how much support they are going to give the ukrainians. i need a government that is reasonably functional, which they don't have, but they also need money which they thought they have. $15 billion was committed by putin but only 3 billion made it to the ukrainian coppers. with the crackdown that failed during the olympics, the money is no longer there. the russian government said you can find the 2 billion from someone else. how about the imf? the imf is under political pressure to provide some

financing, which out which ukraine will default, they will have to see a government working in ukraine and that will have to include just folks that will be acceptable to demonstrators, but some the technocrats that have the capability who are pretty corrupt and some of whom come from yanukovych's former supporters in the region. the u.s. has to do a couple of things -- facilitate, use the lever of cash from the imf to facilitate a workable outcome that will make the demonstrators hold their nose in terms of elections. he also have to make russians not feel like complete losers because as fiona said, the russians believe right now that they lost tactically. they are not intending to stay that way. if the americans and europeans are going to say, viva democracy, go opposition, and we don't care about the former

party, the russians have the leverage long-term. aiken cut off trade, they can crush the ukrainian oligarchs. they can cut off the energy to ukraine. if putin does not want to use leverage to support secession is him, he can use financial levers over the medium-term to make ukraine the losers. >> what is the possibility of civil war? >> i think it is low in the near term. today, the most interesting news to me has come out of crimea where the russians have a base and naval infantry division. there were riots -- demonstrations that looked a little like riots. they were not violent. they forced the town council there to get rid of their mayor and except a russian citizen as their mayor. they also flew some russian

flags. that shows their disposition. the crimean people, the majority of them have no interest in being a part of ukraine. if the russians want to stir up trouble, that's where they can do it. in the near-term, i don't think the russians will push that. russia makes a lot of money out of transiting energy through ukraine and if they cannot do that, that undermines the russians. i think putin might accept the tactical loss but he will use his power to absolutely push the disposition of ukraine to move much closer to russia than it looks today. it is not civil war but it clearly is a heightened possibility of economic default for the ukrainian nation and long-term, that does not look airy good. >> a couple of things. there are a few hurdles to be cleared before we can look at the long-term functionality of the government. i think it is nothing short of remarkable that the entire state apparatus ditched yanukovych.

on friday, i think we worried about civil war, that the government would rally behind the president, the opposition would be in the streets -- that is not what happened. you had the police, the army, the interior ministry, the bureaucracy essentially flee, including a party of regions, yanukovych's own party, who was calling him a criminal and crook. >> it was the strategy of putin to restore as much of the rand view of russia as he could. can he be stopped without the west being able to come forward from germany and other players without money guarantees because of the debt and maintenance of

the government? >> it is a critical question in part of it is going to come down to dollars, two rubles, to whether the imf and eu can sweeten the pot. i think there is no question they will do that. the question is, how much? we know because of the eurozone crisis in the eu, because of the debt crisis in the united states, no one wants to get out a checkbook. america is having enough problem's getting the german taxpayers to agree to bail out greece. not to talk about ukraine. there is a high hurdle here. i think it is not just about the money and the gas. it is about a deeper question of world purpose, of orienting the country, and right now ukraine is looking west. that is a slap in the face to putin. >> the reason i think it is not strategic is because it has not played out yet. it could become a strategic loss.

i think the concern is it is not in america's interest or european's interest to feel the russians feel that it is a strategic loss. i think it is in our interest to have the russians have an incremental decline and not realize it over the long-term rate of it is hard. >> this analysis is too gloomy. russia has serious inflows in ukraine, but -- those pipelines that go through ukraine are the principal money earners for ukraine in europe. just as russia can stop sending gas to ukraine, ukraine can stop sending gas to europe. they were threatened by economic blackmail by russia to not sign anything with the eu in the fall. they did not pay any attention. the problem in ukraine is an internal problem. the fact that the party did not rally to yanukovych shows the party knows the future lies in

the west. there are few oligarchs that one a close economic relationship with russia. they realize the eurasian economic union is a bridge to the past. ukraine has the know-how and the wherewithal to stand up to russian pressure. >> what percentage of the population believes what you just said? 60%? >> a clear majority, 55% or so. among the elites, including the oligarchs, including be richest men in ukraine, is closely to 90%. the russian oligarchs have influence in the kremlin -- they are the kremlin, whereas they have no such influence. that is why you see no rallying to yanukovych. >> what possibility exist for a western agreement with russia to avoid the crisis or figure out a way that works in the best interest of ukraine and the best

interest of the people both east and west in ukraine. >> a lot of the so-called ukrainian nationalist elite are the opposition who feel more comfortable in russia been ukraine. you have an identity the. follow linguistic lines. there are 17 million russians in ukraine -- that is not true, but he said that deliberately. he says that to force the link. we should not rule out that the russians are trying to figure out behind the scenes how they reach out themselves while we are maneuvering about what is going to happen about the imf. the russians are having their own discussions with members of the opposition behind the scenes in trying to figure out their next play.

i think we have to be very careful about this. this is about ukrainians themselves figuring it out and not getting ahead of ourselves and how this will play out over the long-term. >> them he had one thing. >> fiona has made an important point about the cultural identity difference between east and west. one of the message that we need to send to whatever government that ends up in office is don't make this an either or choice. don't make this either we are european or pro-russian. going back to the polish empire, the austro-hungarian empire that sat on western ukraine, they are very different in their language, culture, their outlook in the east and any government have to recognize that and build an inclusive tent. otherwise it will not work. >> it is great to talk about it we are all ukrainians and the future of ukraine is in their hands and i love that as an analytic trope. the reality is that whatever

government they choose, where the money come from is not about the ukrainians. where that comes from is about the europeans and americans and the russians. the europeans' willingness -- if they have been willing to pay attention to cut them a deal, we would not have gotten here. europeans were more focused on their own crisis and it made it difficult for the ukrainians to bounce between europe and russia. the willingness is to bail them out is much less than putin's writing them a $50 billion check. >> thank you. back in a moment. ♪

>> if google were really proud of our efforts to build a more connected world through android, motorola phones, project blue, her anticipation in the reportable internet, just to name a few. i also recognize the challenges that come with a connected world. if i'm so pleased that google has done this and thank you to the team. i'm grateful for you to participate. eric schmidt and jerod cohan are here. they announced digital age

grants for groups who use technology to solve pressing global problems. they are funded through a $1 million donation to eric schmidt. the effort grew out of their ideas and their best-selling book, "the new digital age." the book comes out in paperback next week. i am pleased to have eric schmidt and jerod cohan back at this table. welcome. let me start with this -- what is new in the afterword that was not in the book earlier and what are you saying today? >> the biggest thing that has happened since the first book came out has been so many revolutions, the disclosures from snowden and the crises that governments are having with individuals. we think this was anticipated in the book, "you judge. the empowerment of citizens has a lot of implications.

>> i want to talk about all those things. i also -- you suggest that we have not seen nothing yet when we about how important the internet will be in medicine and education. let's reference that back. >> i will start with education. eric and talk very compellingly about medicine. you asked the question what is new? the vast majority of the world's children have learned through rote memorization and access to connectivity will allow us to fight rote memorization with critical thinking. >> when you go to the doctor, you're given an average. this male or female, age group -- wouldn't you rather have individualized medicine, where they take a sequence of your skin and they know precisely what drug will fix the problem? that is possible in a few years. >> you talk about genomes in medicine and how -- when we talk about the potential of what is

available for humankind, how far off is the kind of personalized medicine that will make a difference and data available so that we know what our risks are and how we can address those risks? >> is happening now and in five years it will be pretty universal. it takes that long because we have to get the data. we have to do the sequences. genetic sequencing has fallen in cost over $900 in the next two years. and you go to the doctor, the sequences will be done on you right then and there with your permission and the information will be stored to help figure out what your problems are. there are also a lot of start ups that are using phones for normal monitoring, transdermal monitoring of one kind or another to literally get to the point where you can say, something changed in your body,

i am calling the dr. for you. >> the whole world of sensors is changing dramatically. >> this is the question that we think will define the future -- what happens to autocracy? on a trip we took to north korea a year ago -- when you go to north korea, you are struck by the absence of doubt. this is the last totalitarian society despite the fact they are in a dire situation, there is a silver lining which is there will never be a cult of personality society again because of the internet. it will literally eliminate it in the same way we were able to eliminate smallpox. >> the universal videotaping of everything they're doing -- that would not fly in america. in germany, they already did that experiment. >> where are we with respect to google and how many requests for

information from the government and how it handles it? >> it was illegal for us to answer your question until recently, but there was a change make but less than 10,000 requests over a year. it is a small number. we do them only when they are lawful and it is really only about terrorists. it is not a big number compared to what we normally do. the other aspect of the government was the nsa activities with the spectrum surveillance of google. changed our system so it is very difficult -- >> how are they surveilling you? >> what happened, as best as we can tell, was a program that was called risen used a series of information that came from the british secret service and according to the snowden documents, which appeared to be true, they have figured out a way to get between our computer systems and traffic information.

have no information that information was misused. when we saw that, we close to those doors. >> on this program, we will be looking at ukrainian talking about where that revolution is. what was the role of social media in ukraine? we will also talk about a new documentary film called "square," which is what happened in egypt. what we know about ukraine and the impact of the internet? >> compare ukraine with the georgia crisis in august of 2008. in georgia, more people died. there was more violence and it lasted longer. it so many more people have paid attention to ukraine. you ask why, and what is different. social media shined a spotlight that previously did not exist. yanukovych lost a lot of his

support base after revelations about what he was doing came out. he tried to shut down the opposition main channel, channel five, and all it did was give people an additional grievance to talk about on social media. >> the media's first focused on the terrible and tragic deaths of roughly 78 people in the square but the real story was the loss of political support by virtue of being connected to the internet. >> the me talk about the whole new prize you are offering. how will be a factor in the do come forward to this million dollar prize. >> i am literally putting my money where my mouth is. >> this is your money. >> this is a personal donation. google is doing things in this area and many are, as well. there are a series of problems -- empowerment of individuals, anti-censorship, illicit trafficking in illicit networks. technologies can be used to make those worse or better. i personally want to fund the people who are trying to make the problems better for citizens. there are plenty of heroes, we want to find them all. >> when you look at africa, for

example, and how the internet is used in such a positive way in terms of farmers in, in terms of people seeking small loans, a whole range of ways that give them access to both data and services they would not have had otherwise. >> africa is the least penetrated in the terms of internet access but it is also the fastest growing mobile market in the world. people will skip connecting to the internet through a pc income online through the first time on a mobile device. >> we went to 40 countries last year and spent a week -- >> to talk about the book? >> no, no. [laughter] there are roughly 600,000 people on mobile phones in africa. that is tremendous resources. when he gets cheap enough to use wi-fi in the ways they do, it will change their governments. >> it will change their health. >> they will say, i am mad as hell. i want something better. >> people find out they are not alone. other people are feeling the same thing.

>> imagine for example what is going on in the congo and the conflicts there and all of the things. finally, the people who are victimized will have a voice. it will reduce the numbers of s and terrible crimes in these areas. >> what percentage of the population are connected to the internet? >> it depends. a rough number is that there are 3.7 billion people using phones. there are 6 billion phone numbers. there are roughly 2.4 billion using the internet in some form. the number of people using the kinds of phones that we use is around 1.5 billion. the numbers are large and they are the fastest run part of the computer industry. their far outpacing personal computers. tablets are being used to replace risible computers. the mobile revolution is changing the face of computing and the way people interact.

the other thing to know is that there are a series of price points that we have to get to. there are $100 android phones available in china now from companies like xiao mei. many, many phones. they are likely to get to $70, 50 dollars, and eventually $30. at those prices, the destitute will use them and they will use them to get the basics. >> how many countries in the world try to restrict the internet? >> one out of every three people on earth live in a society that is severely censored. >> in a society that is -- clearly, china is a part of that. >> china, iran, countries like that. >> there are roughly 44 countries by googles count that restricted internet in a number of forms. turkey, for example, has made a news worse by a series of laws which were passed to make it essentially impossible to have normal internet traffic and the

government can ban anything. recent was in russia have, under the guise of child protection, are written in a very broad way and can influence political speech. in china, the prime minister -- president passed a law six months ago that criminalizes speech of more than 5000 bloggers. it is getting worse for them in these countries. >> sudan shut down the internet recently. >> there is a series of people who are working on satellite strategies for this but there are so many ways in which the government can shape this. we believe that in the next decade, technologists who are opposed to censorship will find ways to essentially eliminate the ability for governments to completely eliminate it. >> i want to take you back. you said there are four horsemen driving innovation in the 1990's.

today there is a new gang of 4 -- google, apple, amazon, and facebook. that was 2011. what would you change? >> it is still true. if you do the analysis in terms of platforms, shareholder value, reach, size of companies, those for continued to find. apple has had a tremendous run. even with the tragic loss of steve. if you look at amazon, defining and redefining commerce globally. facebook on a tear, doing all sorts of acquisitions. they are showing a mobile is very real. google, a very good few years under larry's leadership.

i think before are there. it is clear that microsoft has to redo it. there are other candidates -- twitter attempting to become a platform. >> what does microsoft have to do? >> the problem they have is that their model was organized around the monopoly windows position antimonopoly office position for products which are now free and broadly used in platforms that they do not sell. nokia is busy announcing an android-based phone. shocking. an interesting example of the power of open systems resource. >> you have acknowledged that google missed social media. >> we did. >> microsoft missed social media and a number of other things. how does someone as smart and savvy as google ms. social media. >> i took responsibility for that.

but we were busy. we were doing chrome, the number one browser. you should use it all the time. android, number one mobile platform. we were unable to do one part. we had a good. what we were missing that. >> are you happy with your market value? >> i think the company and shareholders are happy. [laughter] google plus, which is our entry in the last two years, continues to do extremely well if you look for google plus hangouts. they are phenomenal. >> what has been the guiding strategy? basically, what you said about the gang of four is that they would be competing with each other in a variety of ways. >> that competition has benefited consumers enormously. the fight between apple and google over operating systems is

producing enormous reductions in the prices of phones. if google was not there, the iphones would be more expensive. consumer value is enhanced widest brutal competition. take a look at amazon. amazon has completely restructured the way marketing and distribution of products. they control 40%-50% of the online market. depending on what estimates. amazon is the world's leader in hosting platform services. >> many believe will be the bigger revenue generator for them than retail. >> web services are primary profit engine. >> facebook just announced today about whatsapp. $16 billion. it has been reported that you were in the bidding and it was $10 billion. facebook got it and mark is

saying this is the most exciting venture they could possibly have. it will be up to $1 billion -- a billion people using it. >> the estimates are that there are more than 400 million users. it is the way of bypassing estimates of the telcos. it is primarily used outside of benighted states and important to acquire. the question of valuation is a question of what they do with it. if i handed you a 400 million unit network, how much money could you make from that? depending on how well they execute it, eight could make a whole lot of money or not. >> what about yahoo!? they have a lot of users. >> of course. >> they are not on your list. where are they? a formal google person is running a. where are they in the mix? >> they have to define their part of this platform strategy. >> will there be one winner or will it simply be a shared bonanza? >> i hope -- i hope that the market never goes back to the

marcus off almonds that i lived through ash microsoft dominance that i lived through 20 years ago. i am proud that there are four extremely well run companies that identified. >> my question was will one emerge? >> unlikely, and the reason has to do with the way the internet works. microsoft dominance was possible because of the limited distribution -- it was the way that pcs were sold. someone can do a phenomenal job over here and no one notices. all the sudden -- >> it only uses mobile. >> instagram was only available on mobile. and that was facebook's last acquisition.

>> is that your primary challenger? >> facebook continues to do very well. they are well run, have very good engineering, and have quite a few people we know. >> engineering is crucial. >> of course, but this is about inventing the future. google and these other companies as well, we are working very hard to invent things that people really want, even if they don't know they need it. >> we are talking -- there is google glass. how is that doing? >> very well. people are experimenting with it. >> you introduce the right here at this table. >> we are always criticized for the way we behave. take a look at google last. we were careful. he said we were not sure how they would use it. we did not roll it over the line

and say, program away. there are appropriate and inappropriate uses for it. we are seeing how the market responses. >> you come to this company from a different background. what excites you the most about all of these companies and the possibilities of what they can do? in terms of changing what it means to be human? >> i come from the geopolitical world. i spent four years of the state department before coming here. i had a realization at the end of my government tenure that statecraft was just a fancy way to say troubleshooting. we are always troubleshooting a challenge. suddenly, technology gets elevated at a critical piece that is missing. what is new is the engineers. the engineers look at

geopolitical problems through a totally different way. >> imagine if you had engineers at the state department. >> you could have built solutions to the problems -- eric is a computer scientist. we traveled the world together and we set in this foreign ministry or that one, yes very computer science questions. it leads to a totally different conversation. to give you an example, we were talking to people about what to do in syria and it occurred to eric that nobody, in the midst of talking about what should be done, ever began to look at how much things cost, how things would work. >> the new story in syria that everyone has a mobile phone. let's get the right people mobile phones and the wrong people mobile phones that have wrong stuff in it. >> can you find people of like-minded any country of the world?

>> one of the things that is interesting about leaving foreign policy and coming to google is that with the exception of isolated traffic police in north korea, everyone in the world has heard of google and wants to talk about it. technology is a tool but it is also a culture. it is the lowest common denominator across every society that is open. >> in north korea, jerod wanted to meet with the traffic ladies. they had no idea they were internet sensations. they didn't realize that because they didn't have access. in the case of tunisia, we met with the bloggers that helped overthrow the dictator at the time. what are they doing now? android developers. >> i was in lebanon on the syrian border and i saw a syrian friend of mine that i had not seen in a long time. they told me stories about these checkpoints where they ask you for your phone, they're going on your profile, seeing who posted things on your page and depending on what they find, they will arrest you or shoot you.

>> your identity is now defined by who sent you a message. >> silicon valley as a community and culture, much has been said about it. it is a home for engineers and computer sciences. is it more than that a methodology for thinking? you come from a rhodes scholarship to government and now you are out there. is it something -- everyone who comes here is a visiting head of state, most recently the president of france -- they go to washington and to go to silicon valley. what is it they want? how do we build a silicon valley in our country? >> every government i have spoken with would like to replicate it. >> china and russia both. >> it is difficult to replicate the american model because they have to fix their university and

regulatory systems. they have the human capital to do it but they be not the regulatory incumbency. >> it takes longer to build great universities. >> you have to allow for venture capital. you can't imprison people who fail after mistakes. these countries are not growing and they are not generating jobs. the way you create jobs is by creating new companies, new entrepreneurs, new ideas. the silicon valley model is one. every country needs this because they have to solve the problem of joblessness. >> look at our country. how come we haven't been able to do more in job creation with all of that iq power in the united states? >> the american political system is designed to not make much progress and -- >> checks and balances, or -- >> whatever you want to call it. there are very few laws being passed on anything. government is kind of stuck.

entrepreneurs and businesspeople are trying to move this forward by investing in creating new businesses and i think that will be our future. we are doing it as fast as we know how. >> here's the other question -- are you creating jobs? how many people work for whatsapp? >> very small amount. >> it is a $16 billion company now. >> they are very valuable people. >> losing productivity, meaningless jobs and therefore we have to have a dramatic change in the way it that we educated. even what we look for in the people that we hire? >> i agree with that. the question of productivity -- a lot of people think the measures are beginning to be mathematically wrong. the reality is that automation is replacing certain times -- kinds of repetitive jobs.

cars are built by robots. this is the problem. this has been going on for a long time. it is not a new problem. i'm concerned this will accelerate over the next 10 years. and peters are getting smarter and smarter and it could affect the general knowledge worker. the jobs that are created are by gazelles. the best solutions we have come up with so far, and there is a big google project internally, is fixing education, fixing entrepreneurship so we have people coming in, more use of information, and creating areas where people can be disruptive. if there is a law that does not allow for what an entrepreneur is doing, they can do it in another country. >> whatsapp did not come from google. it came from two guys in a garage. >> that story will be repeated and i would love that idea was repeated in every city of

america and europe and japan. >> this idea of how america is wired -- google fiber is out there with a select number of cities coming in with huge, high speed internet service. you have comcast in the future trying to get through the regulatory environment eyeing time warner because they want to have a broadband capacity. they want to have the pipes. what is the impact of all this with increasingly video as an important part of what the internet is about? >> we want to have as much competition as we can in infrastructure. we may not have enough. the concerns about time warner and comcast are about who is the competitor. google fiber is present in four cities. we want as much competition as possible. >> how does it work? in my home state, asheville is one of the cities. >> the simple answer is the fiber is run to the poll or the

curb and for a small fee, you pay to get it connected. if you want slow speed connectivity which is about five megabits, we will give it to you free for seven years. most people like to pay the roughly equivalent internet connection fees they do today and they get almost one gigabit speed up and down. it is revolutionary. >> in terms they have not seen anything like it. >> the speed is so much greater. are people clamoring for this? >> yes, they are. >> you take this rhodes scholarship out there. what intrigued you about things like artificial intelligence and robotics? >> in the book, we have a line -- in the future, computers and human beings will split duties compared for what they are good at.

that being said, we all want to automate certain parts of our lives and preserve other parts. there are no shortage of people that are looking at artificial intelligence. you think about veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan and the possibilities available to them in terms of limbs and functionality. there is a lot of exciting prospect but the good news is a lot of it is in the distant future so there is lots of time to debate it. >> the velocity of changes pretty fast. it is a huge problem with understand now. if you understand what it takes to make your hand move up and down, the kind of thing we are finding -- >> google just bought a company that does interesting research in this space.

we're getting to the point where computers can begin to understand generic topics that you don't train them. historically, artificial intelligence is you would show the computer something and it would find copies. where are beginning to discover something that we did not train the computer for. it is years away from being generalizable. >> where are you going? 10 years from now, will you still be the chairman -- >> yes. [laughter] >> and you? what is your dream? >> i've always said that there is a set of issues that i care about, fighting for free expression and the empowering people in the face of oppressive regimes. with engineers working with you, you can create things. the ability to create is what is so attractive about the tech sector. there are few places were creation feels like it is

possible today and the tech sector is one of them. >> google reflects a value system of a free and open internet which is something i've have spent my whole life working for technically. the stakes here are huge. education, entertainment, huge markets. the freedoms of citizens. google is a perfect place to work on this. >> what happens after the internet? >> the internet will eventually go away in the same sense that electricity went away. >> it becomes an ever-present commodity. >> the only place you hear discussions about electricity as places where it is unreliable, like in pakistan or africa. we take it for granted. 80 years ago after the debates on ac and dc, the show would have been about electrification. >> someone said, this company would be disruptive.

the important things that you make in the book is the disruptiveness of the internet in its affect on business. you can never assume today will be forever. >> there is always another startup of brilliant people coming out of a major university. >> the book is called "a new digital age. when we come back, we will take a look at a film called "the square." >> i am not going to go and vote while my friends are being killed in the street. i have friends in the hospital in serious condition. i know people that have died. i'm not going to go and cast my vote in the circumstances. >> egypt interim cap never assigned today after less than a year in power. they came amid labor strikes over the government's they are to fix the economy.

to understand the human story of the politics in egypt, there is an oscar-nominated documentary called "the square." it takes us inside the people's movement of the last three years since demonstrators took the street three years ago. is the first time in egyptian film is nominated for an academy award in any category. here's the trailer for the film. >> millions of egyptians came down to the streets in nationwide protest. >> this uprising defines any definition. >> people are gathering in the largest demonstrations against the president.

exactlyl put someone like him in his place.

>> the army has killed them, tortured them, and the people out there know that. >> it is officially censored in egypt but that has not stopped egyptians from seeing the film. it has seen almost 2 million views in egypt.

thank you for joining us. see you next time. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to "bloomberg west," where our focus is on technology and the future of business. i'm emily chang. the future of bitcoin in question today. thieves may have made off with money of the currency. we will talk about that a little bit later. and the nsa prism program and whatsapp.