♪ announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." >> this is one of those moments. you know what i'm talking about. everyone has an opinion. they have people say set rules. are we going to talk about trump or not? jon stewart retired but is back on the colbert show just about every night. who do we need back to guide us in this time? we lost christopher hitchens in 2011 to cancer. non he was alive, presidents, no monarch, politician, not even god was safe from his perfect cutting

commentary, his historical wisdomizing. he was unpredictable with a voice in all parts gravel and whiskey. he was a 1960's socialist and ardent supporter of the invasion of iraq. no one wore the badge of contrary and more probably than christopher hitchens, as he once explained to charlie rose. >> not everyone wants to always step or against the stream. but if you do feel consensus does not speak for you, if there is something about you that makes you feel it is worth being unpopular or marginal for the chance to lead your life, have a life instead of a career or job, and i can promise you it is worthwhile. >> what would hitch say about america in this age of donald trump? hitch's are some of

many friends and colleagues. widow, carol blue hitchens. welcome to all of you. you memorably told me that up until his last moments, he was engaged in the news. we can absolutely predict he would have had something to say about what is coming out right now. >> i think he would have something to say every time he wrote a column or came on tv. infer we have to try to what he might have said. and really, only he could say it. but there you go. >> intellectual forensics, that is what we will call it. brinkley, he could create a parallel.

what do you think he would find as the most significant historical reference that would describe this time of donald trump? >> he probably would have turned back to george orwell, who he loved so much. the fact of the matter is orwell's books are back in circulation. the one consistency of this contrarian, christopher hitchens our friend, was his disdain of authoritarianism in any guys. henryld go after kissinger or the catholic church. he did not care if he smelled authoritarianism. the moves of donald trump to suppress journalists would drive hitchens mad. he would also see this as a grand opportunity living in .ashington he would have loved to have warred with people like steve bannon or kellyanne conway

because you would knew they would be able to double state them. he would have picked up on the cause of the press, would have questioned all of trump's seeming fascist tendencies. >> although, because trump has an opportunity to lambaste traditional liberalism in washington, d.c., and because of clintonsmpt for the christian religions had. the election, it is hard for me to know where he would have come down on this election. what do you think? >> i think christopher would p,ve been appalled by trum but he also would have said, who gave us trump? hillary clinton. christopher was not a big supporter of hillary clinton. i feel he would have said it is because of the way they ran that campaign that we ended up with donald trump.

i think he would have laid a lot of responsibility at her feet. >> liberalism infuriated christopher, it seemed to me. liberalism of the intellectual elite drove him crazy. what do you think he would say about the people who support donald trump versus the people who have contempt for him? >> i think he would be very active in the resistance. i think he would sense this was a moment that has chosen him. i think he would have more or less ignored trump himself. he thought bill clinton was a titanic will gary and -- will gary and -- vulgarian. i think he would have gone for steve bannon. he would have honed in on steve bannon who revealed himself yesterday as a simulator it neurotic -- semi-literate

neurotic when he said every morning president trump tells reince and i, the means reince and me. the idea of him being intellectual is laughable. he is another neurotic windbag. >> i think christopher would have said look to the language. the incredible poverty and possibly of his language -- pausity of his language. his attack on the press. that is what is coming out of bannon and trump's mouth now. just look to the language. i think he would have learned a lot from that. i agree with you, martin. the idea that banning is the intellectual heavyweight and ideologue of this super ra nationalist sup wing of the republican party is laughable. >> what would he think of

bannon? they kind of svengali -- a kind of svengali? >> he would have seen what martin pointed out. he is like swiss cheese, filled with holes. hitchens was well read and a brilliant interpreter of modern life. bannon is sort of a goldman sachs hack, one of be producer in hollywood, the kind of stumbled upon after 9/11 this philosophy of raw, american nationalism. ens warred against established religions in general. the first lady reading the lord's prayer at the florida rally the other day, those things would have irritated hitchens. i do think he would have aimed at banning as the intellectual poser. leslie nailed it.

there is no way christopher hitchens would have voted for hillary clinton. >> what do you think his verdict would be on the state of the american system right now? >> a couple of things. christopher said to tell a terry and is my enemy -- the totalitarian is my enemy. it is the person who wants to control how you think. he would be very concerned what is happening in the spicer press conferences and coming out of bannon and miller and trump himself. this sort of controlling the thought process. it goes before orwell to tom paine, who made it clear if you cannot think, then liberty is a shadow that quits the horizon. i think looking at the numbers, he would have on the whole russia issue, i think you would have loved the putin bashing.

but i think he would not have bought the notion the russians threw the election in any way. i think he would have said that was the responsibility of the hillary campaign. you would have looked at the numbers in michigan for example, he would have said they were not on the ground. they did not move the unions. they did not do that job. >> i think he would zero in on these threats to the press. everyone knows democracy cannot work without a free press. these dark, menacing remarks bannon and trump have been making about the opposition party. they say we are going to do something about it. what would set off all the alarm bells. >> he would love being called the in the mone -- the enemy. i am just a journalist.

he would take it. i am the enemy? you would see that spirit come out. that is what is absent right now. >> i think you would think it was a badge of honor for the press to be attacked the way it is. the question would be, could the press in general, those who cover trump, live up to it? it is a high compliment that they are attacking the press. the question is whether the press will deserve it. >> that is a salient question for us. the press itself has a job to do. when we say, what would hitch say, it is because we miss and admire him, it is also because we are asking this question of what the press is to do in this moment. what do you think? afterhad richard nixon all, and hitchens participated in that.

he loved to gossip about the nixon tapes and all the heinous things nixon said. i think one of christopher's most successful endeavors was calling henry kissinger a war criminal. that took some bravery. he stayed on it whether you agreed with it or not. he was proud of the press. hunter s thompson wrote the book "the great shark hunt." i think hitchens would be proud of investigative journalists like leslie who do stories, break news. d.c., andashington, not new york, he would have been the grand poobah of the modern press corps. he used to throw grand parties with journalists. it would have been a hub of how hitchens looked at this trump phenomena. their apartment was the salon of washington a decade ago and would have still been no. >> he would say look at what

they are doing, which is not with the press is saying now. the press is kind of reporting. he had that spirit and the to rise above and say, "look what they are doing." >> he would enjoin the solidarity of the press. when one journalist is shouted the otherump, all of journalists, "i am spartacus." they should all ask the same question. they have got to be confrontational with him because he is going to be confrontational with the press. -- weoment when he said caught them in a real beauty today, the press, they will pay for it. the beauty was that the crowds were not as big for over obama's inauguration. it was not a beauty. middleone gets his son's name wrong, he calls it fake news. he muddies the water. "fake news" is no longer usable through ambiguity.

means news i don't like. hitchenschristopher look back at his knowledge of orwell in the 20th century and the fascists and dictators who came and went and that he could quote chapter and verse like no one else and know where we are headed like nowhere else, like no one else? >> i think you are right about that. i think we know trump does not really read. there are two movies i think he would be revisiting. i am not the first to point this out. "thetoring candidate -- manchurian candidate." imagine angela lance berry is steve bannon. "network," incredibly apt. i think he would be calling on

some of these movie references. hitch say?ld i think we have an inkling. thank you so much for that. ♪

♪ jeffrey: good evening. i am jeffrey toobin filling in for charlie rose. leading among them is new york

attorney general eric schneiderman. his office is fighting the immigration ban and president trump personally in the now subtle trump university lawsuit and continuing investigation of the trump foundation. i am pleased to have eric schneiderman at charlie's's famous table. said we have new orders in terms of how we are going to deal with deportation of undocumented immigrants. short version, there is going to be more enforcement. you are going to try to alleviate that, fight it how? eric: we anticipated this attack, particularly where it regards so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. it is important to understand there is no legal definition as to what a sanctuary jurisdiction is, so we anticipated there would be an attack coming. and last month, issued guidance for the first time setting out a

legal roadmap of what the city has to do, what you are obligated to do under federal law, and what you don't have to do. i'm pleased to say there have been jurisdictions around the country using our legal roadmap to help rewrite their local resolutions to prepare themselves to be in compliance with the law. the two memos issued by dhs are follow-ups on executive orders trump issued in late january and deal with how we handle the immigrants already in the country. we already had the big fight over the ban on immigration and refugees. jeffrey: we are waiting for a revised executive order on that one. eric: that is where you saw democratic a.g.'s all over the country stepping up, working together, getting courts all over the country backing each other up with amicus briefs and eventually getting a stay of the immigration ban. these new memos and executive

orders are more likely to be taken up first in individual cases of people being apprehended. it contemplates a massive expansion of what are called expedited deportations, where people do not get the right to a hearing. that raises a lot of due process issues and does include various provisions attacking what he defines as sanctuary jurisdictions. jeffrey: let's talk about this whole issue of sanctuary cities, sanctuary jurisdictions. as you point out, there is not a specific legal definition of what a sanctuary city is. i think in rough terms what it means is a city, even a state like california, saying we do not want our local officials to help ice, the immigration authorities, deport people. is it legal for new york city to

say, we are not going to help the federal government deport people? eric: yes, to a great extent. the reason we issued guidance available on our website and is being used around the state is that there are certain things you are required to do. the statute, the relevant statute, has some requirements. but most of this is optional. they cannot force local law enforcement agencies to become an arm of the federal immigration services. local agencies can sign up for a program to join in, but it is optional. there is some information you are required to turn over the -- over to the federal government if they get a judicial warrant. you have to collaborate them on whatever the warrant requires from you. but to a great extent, jurisdictions have the option to say, we actually, in our judgment, this is what nypd has made clear, we are a sanctuary city, in our judgment we do not

want immigrants not to come forward as witnesses and crime victims. we believe it makes it safer for our police officers not to be perceived as arms of immigration. and as our guidance makes clear, in most cases local governments can refuse to cooperate. if they get a judicial warrant, that is something else. jeffrey: what about the possibility, and you are aware of this through executive action, through legistlative action, republicans say, ok you -- you want to be a sanctuary city, you can forget about the federal funds for subways, medicaid. have a great time, but we are not going to get any federal money? eric: we will be in court in a heartbeat on that because there are severe restrictions on the ability of the federal government to coerce state and local governments through reductions of funding into doing things. that was the heart of the decision on the affordable care act, the threat to cut off

medicare funding. if you want to cut off funding, there has to be a nexus between the program the local government is not complying with and the funding. so you can only look at federal funds for law a enforcement related to immigration, which is not much money. you cannot cut off money for parks and subways because of a refusal to comply on request for help on immigration. there is a general rule if the funding is so large and something that local governments are dependent on, again in the affordable care act opinion, it amounts to coercion. the federal government cannot use funding in coercion. there has to be a clear statement when you let the local government apply for the funding that it is subject to these conditions. you cannot retroactively impose conditions. the ability of the federal government to cut off funding for sanctuary cities is limited. i think it will be tested in courts. that is one of the reasons we wanted to make sure in the case of new york that everyone knows what the law is and is not.

so now there is a roadmap for what you can and cannot do. the executive orders do go beyond what the stated law is, but that should not be a surprise. his first executive order banning immigrants and refugees was found by courts around america to have gone beyond what was allowed. jeffrey: let's talk about that order. that was the order, it seems like a long time ago, but it was only a couple of weeks ago, january 27, where seven muslim majority countries, there were new restrictions on immigration. the district court in seattle said it is unconstitutional. the ninth ciruit affirms that ruling. the trump administration now said they are going to rework it in a way to similar effect. do you think there is a way they can rewrite that executive order so that it is constitutional? eric: not that executive order. i mean, they can take pieces of it and perhaps do it.

jeffrey: what is the problem with that executive order? presidents have wide authority over immigration. why can't they say these seven countries, we want to stop and take a look? eric: there are so many problems with that executive order. there was an article written about it by someone at brookings called "malevolence tempered by incompetence," which i think sums up a lot of people's feelings about the executive order. it said no one from these seven countries can come. it contemplated providing the president with a longer list to be added later. that was in the original order. it also shut down a refugee program completely for a time and permanently banned syrian refugees. i don't think there's any way to constitutionally do what they tried to do. it was clear from the language of the order itself. while the ninth ciruit decision is the decision that stayed the

order of the trump administration said we will not try to appeal, we will go back to the drawing board, it is important to understand we went into courts all around the country brought on behalf of detainees. i went into court in new york. my colleagues went into court in virginia and other states. this is something where every judge that saw this, republican and democrat alike, issued some form of stay of the order. some stays were broader, some were narrower. it became clear the court in washington was prepared to issue a national stay. that is why we submitted and received amicus briefs from all different sectors of the business community, activist groups. the damage to the country caused by such an extreme termination of immigration from any countries in the world but certainly from these seven, we

documented the harm it would cause to new york and new yorkers. we are a state that lives off international commerce. our health care sector would suffer. there were doctors not able to get home from family vacations. state institutions would suffer. our tech sectors, finance sectors. we put forward evidence of the damage done not just to the individual detainees but millions of other new yorkers and people all over the country. i am proud of the fact the attorneys general around the country responded quickly within 36 hours of the order. we issued a strong statement because we were getting nothing but obfuscation and confusion from washington. one of the complaints by folks on the ground working for federal agencies is they had no guidelines. there were inconsistent applications of this elsewhere. we put out a statement we were confident the courts would strike it down. we are committed to minimizing the pain. and we followed through. jeffrey: we will see how that evolves.

do you see yourself as the voice of the opposition to trump? you have democrats in congress, they do not have subpoena power. you have subpoena power. do you see yourself as one of the major checks on the new administration? eric: i do see state governments and state attorneys general in particular as a major check because it has become clear at least until now the republican majorities in congress are reluctant to pose much of a check on this administration. that brings us back to the wisdom of the founders providing for the federalist system where a lot of power is retained at the state level. i see myself and another group of democratic a.g.'s playing a leading role in this. in several distinct ways. first of all, we are in a position to fill in if the federal government retreats from what we believe to be its duties to enforce the law. if they do not want to enforce the civil rights laws, they are not enforcing consumer

protection laws or labor laws, states can fill in that gap. second, if they take action that causes harm to the people we represent, we can challenge them in court. this comes up in many different contexts. ironically, i'm now defending the clean power plan. thabut the rules issued by the obama administration e.p.a. on greenhouse gases came after my office filed a notion of intent to sue them because they were too slow following up on a supreme court decision that directed them to do so. our ability to file lawsuits to protect people, the people we represent from overreach or bad of policy coming out of washington is unusual. i think we will have a new test of the strength of our federalist fabric. the opportunities are there, we are not looking for fights that do not exist. the reason the immigration ban became the first flashpoint was it took effect immediately.

jeffrey: even before president trump took office, one of the responsibilities of the attorney general of new york is to regulate charities. you sued trump about the use and abuse of his foundation. eric: we determined they had not done the proper filings in new york to raise money here and issued a directive that they comply with. they cannot raise money here anymore. we are working our way through whatever problems they are. they are being handled professionally. their lawyers are cooperating with our lawyers. jeffrey: tell me about the trump university investigation. eric: trump university was a different matter. this was a lawsuit brought in the summer of 2013, long before anyone thought he would hold the present position he does. it clearly was not a political case. we were looking at for-profit colleges generally and had actions against several for-profit colleges. trump university was supposedly a new york state university. we do have rules in new york we are picky about. you cannot just say this is a

university and you get a diploma. we sued because it was a straight-up fraud. mr. trump's role was as the pitch man. we have videos of him saying, "my hand-picked experts will teach you," and we got sworn testimony he was not involved at all. jeffrey: he settled it for $25 million, a relative pittance it seems. did you roll over in that case? eric: not at all. this was an excellent settlement. folks ripped off at university have been waiting a long time for the money. they wanted to get as much relief as they could. they received compensation. we got on top of that a million dollar fine to the state of new york because of their abuse of our education laws. i was very pleased with the settlement. keep in mind, he said how many times i will never settle this case. i'm going to win this in court. it will be easy to win in court.

he is a new yorker. i am the new york state attorney general. we have gotten to know each other in the context of litigation and investigations in the past. jeffrey: what do you think of donald trump? eric: i think it is extraordinary he has done what he has done. give credit where credit is due, but he's now the president of the united states. whatever our relationship was when he was a private citizen engaged in good or bad conduct is very different. we are not out to get mr. trump. we are out to uphold the rule of law. jeffrey: let me ask a legal question. in the course of your trump foundation investigation, do you have the legal right to subpoena his tax return? eric: i don't comment on ongoing investigations. i don't think we are there yet. jeffrey: i am not saying are you subpoenaing, but do you have the

legal authority to do that? eric: i don't think that is something required under the circumstances of this investigation. we are being very careful not to overstep our authority. we don't want anyone to get the impression there is any political aspect to this. we are treating it as much as we can like a normal investigation into another foundation that had troubles. i have to say to their credit, his lawyers have been dealing with us professionally and responsibly making information available as we requested. jeffrey: one of the paradoxes of your role is you are both a law enforcement official and a politician. you run for office. you are a democrat. you supported hillary clinton for president. if virtually every state attorney general is a separately elected official, isn't there something inherently awkward at least if not actual conflict of interest of being an active and proud democrat and being someone who wields the power of

law-enforcement? eric: not really. historically, the really has not been. we have a long history, the republic has lasted a long time with elected attorneys general and fulfilling other roles. i think it is dependent on us being responsible. if something is going to hurt new yorkers, i represent the 19 million plus people here, i will take action. i have sworn to do that. i will tell you at least among my democratic colleagues, there is a sense of professionalism about our work. we are the guardians. we are not just representing our individual states. we are the guardians of the rule of law for the system of constitutional laws. this is a government of laws. not just of one man. i think there was a real sense in which my fellow a.g.'s got riled up by the immigration ban

because of the sense of disregard for the rule of law. they took the position in the case that in the area of immigration, the president has unfettered discretion not subject to review by the courts. for any lawyer who takes the system seriously, it is an offensive position to take. i don't think this is a matter of liberal versus conservative. this is not an ordinary set of political battles. we are dealing with an administration that has shown disregard for the constitution and effort to circumvent the checks and balances established under the constitution to keep a chief executive from running amok. this is something we will stand up to wherever he tries to manifest it. jeffrey: one of those checks which had been rather scare is -- rather obsure is the clause olumentsmo humans -- em

clause that says in plain english that foreign governments cannot pay the president. there are some who suggest that through the hotel in washington and perhaps other ways, trump may be in violation of the emoluments clause. is that something in your jurisdiction? who could enforce that, challenge it? eric: this is a fascinating set of questions. we are in totally unchartered territory. let me remind everyone there are two separate issues. one is the unprecedented refusal to divest himself of his holdings. unlike other presidents who created blind trusts or divested their holdings, he still has interest in companies all around the world. second, his refusal to disclose what those interests are which adds another level of problems. there are two clauses in the constitution. in article one there is the foreign emolluments clause that says unless congress approves of some enrichment, any kind of gain by a foreign power, the president cannot accept it. the case law on this, there is

not much case law on this. we are talking about a gift of stallions to a president in the early 19th century. we are reading the research and they are talking about ben franklin getting a jeweled snuff box from the king of france. we are in very obscure territory. my view is our representatives in congress have to at least know what his business interests are so they can fulfill their duties under the emolluments clause to approve or disapprove. that is something that will be litigated at some point. the second clause, and keep in mind at the founding of the republic there was a concern about big states versus little states, that says the president gets whatever his salary is and can get no further emolument from the united states or any state in fear that a state might try to pay off the president to get better treatment. that raises a similar issue. how can states know if they are

violating it if they do not know what his business interests are? we are aware of the litigation already brought on this. the center for ethics and responsibilities in washington and others have brought other ideas to us. it is something i do think a combination of his refusal to divest or place in blind trust his assets and refusal to disclose what those are will come to litigation at some point, whether we are part of it or someone else. i am not sure at this point. jeffrey: let me ask you about it purely new york state issue, voting. those who write about it are indignant about north carolina cutting early voting and ohio and texas. new york has some of the worst voting laws in the country. the famous liberal bastion. no early voting. very difficult absentee voting. why? eric: this is something we

cannot blame on republicans in congress. or donald trump. and you have written about this. i have been an advocate for expanding early voting for a long time. when i became attorney general, our office set up a hotline for election day if people had problems. last year, the phones were ringing off the hook. we had to bring in additional staff because there were some problems with voting. we did an investigation into the board of elections and took our findings and combined them into something called the new york votes act which would bring us into the 21st century. have early voting, no-fault absentee voting, free and open registration process. new york in 2016 was 48 out of 50 states in terms of participation by eligible voters. shame on us. jeffrey: that's unbelievable! eric: that is something that some would argue is lower voter turnout favoring the incumbents of both parties.

some consultants make money selling the triple prime voter list of people who will show up in a hurricane to vote. and that's a very valuable list. i favor opening up the franchise. it is so easy to do. x thanks for being on the show.

♪ >> good evening i'm filling in

virtually rose when cannot overstate the power of technology to change the world. this man is at the forefront to address some of the toughest challenges. he founded google ideas in 2010. his company is focused on a range of global security projects. before joining google, he served at the state department under condoleezza rice and hillary clinton where he pioneered the concept of digital diplomacy. i am pleased to have jerry cohen on this program. >> thanks for having me. >> thank you for coming. you have announced a new project which is called perspective. an idea about protecting people from bullying and harassment. a something that we talk and think about so often. thee are all familiar with

toxicity problem online. we have all had some certain experience with this. perspective uses machine learning to detect that toxicity online so we can help publishers do something to mitigated. skate.lled a health what is happened to culture online? >> you have a notion of toxicity and people being mean to each other. throughout part of the globe, we are all experiencing instances where somebody derails a conversation. online barriers are lower. people can scurry out of there faster. the main issue is that we have to understand the toxicity we experience online has real-world implications. >> we are not talking about fake news. we're talking about the idea of what we see in social media and the comments section of news stories. what we see on twitter and

elsewhere. that is what this is about? >> the internet is made up of publishers and platforms. they are eager to moderate comments. cap terms of service which are too long for people to read. fallare overwhelmed by the you must nasty comments. they're looking for a way to deal with it. what we have built with perspective is an opportunity to run all of their comments through perspective and they get a toxicity score from 0-100. we have defined toxicity as language that causes somebody to lead the conversation. >> to put it in context, what will happen? if i wrote something that was toxic, does it get eliminated from everybody else's feet? feed? we are trying to >> work with the detection of what is toxic. you work at the "new york times."

so you may make a determination that any toxicity score north of 75, you will remove from the comments. >> how do you define toxicity? >> in this case, these comments are likely to cause somebody to leave the conversation. the way in which we have done this is we have data sets from partners. we have also taken data and crowd sourced it to accredited annotation organizations and asked them the question, which of these comments do you think are likely to cause somebody to leave? what is fascinating is there were greater agreement among entertainers on what constitutes a toxic comment then there was on an attack, obscene, off topic, or hate or harassment. >> haidi defined hate or harassment? about languageng -- abusive language? >> in this case we are talking

about abusive language. in order to use machine learning models, you need a data set. this is artificial intelligence that is reading thousands if not millions of sentences. we have a large data set from "the new york times," that is indicated according to what is toxic. the machine is able to learn based on that training data set. we are able to go out to communities of people and crowd source an answer to the question, which of these comments are toxic. we are determining which is toxic. >> have you imagine the partners and publishers you will partner with will use this? a publishers have articulated line on what constitutes a violation of their policies. the beauty of this is that the power is in the hands of the publisher. in terms of way people might use this, is for moderation.

there is not nearly enough human moderators to be able to sift through all the comments. if human moderators are able to based thecomments are toxic threshold based on the number returned by perspective, they can do it more efficiently. you can also imagine a publisher might decide that we want the people writing the comments to note that the comment in which they wrote crosses the toxicity special as well. >> is the ultimate goal to change behavior? havee ultimate goal is to more civil discussion and yes, to change behavior. if you look at what is happening, people are either shutting down comments altogether, or they are so overwhelmed with negative discourse that all of the same people are not participating. >> what about fake news? what happens when somebody comments and lies? >> the challenge is that it

keeps getting defined in different ways. we have to be careful to distinguish between news we do not like and fake news. >> but this system is not looking at that? >> this is solving one problem which is people are nasty to each other in online discussions and the arbiters of what this course should be allowed and not allowed, the publishers, currently do not have detection tools to scale the process of moderation. question on this issue. when you look at why there's so much hate online, what do you think that is about? , as terrible as it feels online, this would be bad -- a bad world to live in. >> i am not a sociologist but i have some hypotheses. there is something about the distance between the person making the comment and the victim of that comment. it is why somebody is quicker to

give somebody a digital black guy then go up to somebody and punch them in the face. ,> but is this about anonymity because people that there names next to horrible stuff? technology creates space between the attacker and the at. count to 10ple not and think about consequences. the consequences are less apparent. that is part of it. we are interacting with more people online in any given day and we will physically interact with in our entire life. at the touch points go up, people agitate us. we're also experiencing more people that are not part of the circle of individuals we do not interact with. by virtue of being online, you are in the same town square is people all across the world. you're going to encounter more voices that you do not to hear. >> i imagine, if there is a critique of this, it will be that this is the ultimate form

of big brother. have you thought about that? >> we got a lot about this in the process of building perspective and doing the models. the first thing we wanted to do with venture we build something that was a tool that would empower publishers to be the ones ensuring discourse was constructed. we made sure that we build datahing where neither the or models can be used by governments. at the end of the day the best protection is the fact that the machine learning models cannot see through encryption. that helps address any concerns about surveillance. ultimately, my view is that conversation best if you look at the trends of conversation online, they get more toxic by the day. you have 4.3 billion people online today. by 2020, will have 6.1 billion people online on smartphones. those a lot of new people being added to the conversation. in parts of the world where there are political, ethnic, and sectarian tensions, we should

expect this to get much worse if we do not do some thing about it. for a problem we all agree is that, which is people having way too easy a time being nasty and stale. if we can use machine learning to address that problem, why would we not give it a try? >> i want you to put your state department had on. you spent a lot of time picking about digital diplomacy. he also think about cyberattacks and cyber capabilities and the capabilities of others. what you worry about right now? >> the biggest thing is that the stateis a not perpetual of cyber warfare that is being driven by a group of countries of varying forms of governance that are the cyber powers. they are deploying cyber capabilities on a day-to-day basis against each other and their populations. the rules of engagement for what it means for states to interact with each other in the cyber

domain have not yet been written. shouldtheir countries we worry about that have been underreported and underappreciated about their cyber capabilities? >> to me, the most powerful would be u.s., u.k., china, israel, north korea, iran. the real question is not which states are we failing to identify, it is more which states have demonstrated a habit of wreaking physical horror industries that do not possess the nefarious cyber capability. how will he go out and try to procure, either from a cyber power that i mentioned, or from an underground criminal network. what can a trade to get it. talked about rules of the road in terms of how all these countries deal with each other and how they might retaliate.

there have been multiple reports now that intelligence officials think this election was hacked by the russians in terms of the emails that were discovered and released. what is the promotional -- proportional response -- this is been the big topic in washington. >> there is no doctrine on proportional response which is why we have no deterrent in the cyber domain. north korea attacked sony and the response with sanctions. the obama administration kicked a bunch of russian diplomat out and added additional sanctions. there were indictments of iranians that hacked the u.s.. yes small examples, but not enough to change behavior. if you are writing new rules of the game -- and by the way we have decades of experience around the turns and proportional response. if you want to write rules that create -- >> what would it look like?

>> it has to be something that changes behavior. for instance, if the goal is to get a country do not conduct corporate espionage, what threat can be posed that would cause them to change their behavior? it gets much more difficult in a world where attribution is difficult. i believe all wars will begin at cyber wars now. what is so dangerous about cyber wars, cyber incursions, or sarver invasions if you may not know you were attacked for several years. we're used to our world in which a physical attack happens and that moment in the situation room and wherever else where you say here is what happened to us, what are the options? what are we going to do? what are the consequences? what happens when it is two or three years later when so much has changed. everybody has moved on but you have a smoking kind of

information. what do you do if you are a leader of a country at that moment? >> what about the role of technology corporations in terms of the balance of power between states and companies. there is a piece out that said every corporation needs a foreign policy. do you think about a foreign policy for google for how that? -- four alphabet? >> the right way to think about it is each company has its mission statement. it needs a strategy for applying that mission statement around the world. and have mission statements a set of core values. it gets interesting where historically -- even in the last 10 years, there has been a whole host of international security issues they do not seem relevant to the companies. what we are finding is that every physical challenge has a digital manifestation. all of the problems from the physical world are spilling over online.

as much credit for companies to assume whenever problem exists in the world is something they should be proactive in thinking about and understanding how their mission statement and values applies to it. >> what happens when your program decides to put a toxicity score on a politician, there i say president trump or some of the else? >> the models are imperfect. with perspective, there will be. this. we will run comments through perspective, and the scores that come back in some cases will be wrong. in this case, the users themselves can correct it. it will help improve the model. this is also why you apply multiple models. it is also why you end up using lots of different data sets. >> thank you for your conversation. it was not toxic. appreciate it. ♪

♪ yvonne: markets are set to rise after the dow saw a 12 straight gain. the longest run in 30 years. betty: takata agrees to a billion-dollar settlement. softbank is said to be exploring a satellite link with what could be an $18 billion deal. decision day for samsung jay y. indicted in ae scandal that has already brought down the president.