as a whipping board to reflect in the personal, national malay, and direct all of the against. i'm not trying to be against. i think a lot of people, i think arab intellectuals, might agree. you know intellectuals in cairo may actually degree with -- agree with me. :

>> where in 1950's and '60's of my childhood and memories, a young arab men at the time, their ambition was to find a road to progress, to change their society and bring it up to

speed with 20th century secular commercial capitalism. they wanted what they saw on this big screen that america had. the ambition to be lawyers and engineers and doctors and they saw their identity in multiple ways not just as muslims. the great hero was in the '50s and '60s was -- who most americans regard today as another arab dictator but i have a full-fledged portrait of a much more complicated man. he was very secular and loved american culture and american movies and american

magazines. and his closest enemies at home were the muslim brotherhood. his vision which is spire the arab world in the '50s and '60s was to bring the region of the world into the 20th century and unite them with their common language, eric. all this came crumbling down june 1967 with the defeat of the egyptian and humiliation of nasser which is a very personal thing. it is remembered today and still an open wound and with the defeat and humiliation, this opened the door first to radical marxist revolutionary who

was defeated in the tarkanian civil war on black september in 1970. that opened the door eventually to religion are the young men now, most of them unemployed and semi educated and instead of being inspired of the secular arab nationalists future, they begin to look back to something in desperation of religion of fundamental islam which explains why we have what we have today and the arab world. there is an election today in egypt everybody knows the muslim brotherhood would undoubtedly win. it is a grim note to be sure.

[laughter] but that is all the time we have i want to thank you very much for this searching and wide ranging book can't figure for coming. >> [applause]

>> they do for that terrific introduction tonight for us to talk about the book over my last two years will provoke enraged been deeply upset to and we will figure out by the end which half is the cyberbullying spy could not be more excited to congratulate you on the publication of the book that has been interesting for me to watch it takes shape over the last couple years we have watched the live action on the internet revolution such that we have gone from the early days a couple of

years ago where we were out there would during and thinking and hoping there was something called the twitter revolution now flash forward to today not only are we here to celebrate the publication of his book "the net delusion" the dark side of internet freedom" telling you where he came down i am reminded once again how circular our conversations are and here we have the would be twitter revolution in tunisia just this afternoon. i am looking forward to jumping right into the middle of the conversation with evgeny but i have to ask you first can we ever have much wetter revolution in your estimation in order to really become cyber realist we have to give up

our fantasies about liberating power of the internet? >> much depends on what exactly we main. initial problem there was twitter and social media was so instrumental and some people and they were not publicize what was happening in angola to get on the front page at the times because back then it is a very noble event and fast lowered to now see what is happening in tunisia also being covered but "the new york times" put it on the story so it is hard to think

about what day twitter revolution is if you have the constantly changing with the twitter revolution and there it was instrumental almost day direct quote from andrew sullivan who made the law an publicized and basically shaped to that great extent but later of course, they modified their position to say it still helped the headlines and the cnn. that is almost a factor but then they tweaked it -- tweet our blog

everything they see but i do not have much proof but i don't have much proof that twitter or any other technology -- technology they have been hacking into face back -- facebook accounts, g-mail and therefore what social media was playing and i am just not sure it is the people expected it to be. it still matters. >> host: go back in time and drone journey and today much more realistic take of what the internet can

deliver in terms of political freedom. >> >> host: not chernobyl. >> no. a small mining town actually. so i was born and raised there with the subject and it was always dear to me because i always watched closely from what was happening and to a large extent it was not satisfactory but but with all of the buzz, with the political change and remember me and talking

about social media and that they would be actually instrumental. but also spilling over with enthusiasm, in my parts of the world, a social media the protesters or the followers that it had been in serbia, georgia, ukraine come up people expected the same thing to happen in belarus. so there was this excitement it would continue. you put the rising power of social media off of the agenda then you end up with assumptions that social

media will actually played a future role in democratizing the world. sell my first gig after college and using new media and thus of the criminal democratic reform and also it with the activist in jordan with a revolution and the media how to use blogs and social networks to mobilize people as a very optimistic take on how to use the internet not necessarily for protest but

also small -- small things like war, blocking about the environment, country to country it is different. i spend roughly three years during that. getting to know very closely the founders those who were eager to the remainder of the legitimate agenda, and i got to know those who were making assumptions about the power of the internet. and i spent some years doing that and i started seeing that only where they don't have the desired outcome they were making things

worse in part because there was very little thought to put into the development for creating a successful media project. most bloggers were on their own then you had the u.s. agents coming in with more money and enforcing the incentive of to the point* where they stopped innovating and then they have slightly different speeds. so i started to have second thoughts by which many of the same from social media that was the personal one but looking closely at how

the government was responding, and if that the very beginning, if they were just been named keywords from the url, i realized they were becoming much more sophisticated. with s cyberattack storehouse on the web sites of their opponents and hiring people against their opponents and also borrowing technology from the west and from asia from the bloggers and in the case of russia it is also very close to the kremlin which came as somewhat to of a shock

because it was an american company and many people began to respect it would word off negative changes. very little of that was chronicled? >> very little. we began to see filtering and the censorship those waves someone but it is systematic and there was something fundamentally wrong and many people love this town were making good

decisions but also in the ways with the purposes and how to undermine the political regime is. so also to cover the space as much as they could but so more or less empirical work getting to know first hand someone that was then a political position. >> host: do think it was the green revolution in iran that was the tipping of their own views when you came to see the consequences of getting it wrong analytically?

>> it was definitely a tipping point* in terms of understanding to ward off the assumptions of the internet. to find very politically 92 turns off about the government with the initial doubts from much earlier but i never have much of a connection to be on the government side until 2009 it was that ashley the engagement, of course, that is something that they were active from the space for it to be systematized and

minder standing is a fit into the broader understanding so i think with the action end of obama and the kind of worship that characterized his campaign, i think it was much more over bush in terms itself in 2009 we began seeing this the fact that it weighs on at this point* so than in 2009 or maybe it

earlier but then the statements from the state apartment i also talk about it in the book but from january 2010 was the final point* this from this book and this project was the second dimension to examine the government and the internet but the american political establishment thinks of the power of the internet but also thinks how to use the internet for their own agenda. >> host: there is a lot of agitators but when you get around to it in its own way way, the internet free them agenda pushes the initial of freedom agenda in the sense

of the unintended consequences of labeling this as a policy, that is something most people are not familiar with that argument. but once they start to wrap their heads around it, have the obama and administration succeeded in politicizing that up until now the bad guys thought this was a two will not a power projection. is that how you think the bad guys look at google and g-mail that they didn't before? >> yes. of course, we all know there was support before the freedom agenda and just up until allow the u.s. government and foundation

actually did this from the media space from the diplomacy so what i think have been in denver and they is government overshot the mark. probably the state department's saw some also their voice also however before we get into that we have to remember the human agenda itself it was never expounded other than that speech and that speeches self is much more accurate

than actual frameworks but the problem with that, that speech eventually, it is examined in conjunction with the government and the state department from what i mentioned earlier is one, has senator clinton hosting and so what if all of those defense technically through the freedom agenda but it is all the same. now it is a google and the cyber attacks and also how to digitize the archives, many of this is in a way the government did not

foresee that they just did not succeed in any reasonable connections and it became obvious with wikileaks and many people in the world were hypocritical and again, maybe throughout all servers came to senators and talk shows and someone from the state department. but lost people in the world interprets this speech and now many people actually for the first time, and they

realize looking at the pitch looking at the climate of the debate of america. >> host: just to clarify you say the internet freedom agenda is not compatible know he had responded to wikileaks but what is your own feeling how is that a disturbing new trend is something we should welcome or how does that fit into your analysis? >> it definitely fits into a very nicely because we must knowledge from the very beginning, but so they keep

changing and also with the entire conception four or five come i don't know how many times but the additional approach, those and others in the business community, wikipedia was the success in the modern world they all have enough time they're just waiting and if you look at the early statements and now describing those views, and look at cooperative journalism when people doing

those things from years ago. if you look at it now it is a different ideology and some of those are from journalist and in terms of the approach and do to the relationship of the information change i think that change has been but i still did not fully understand value wikileaks says the organization as the problem. the technology allows people to upload the documents, this isn't a matter of days, if you want to build a secure wikileaks

section that is very easy to build. >> the question is where is the value? those of which they could contact media journalist and there are some global problems of which compared to everyone else but the local weeks good chances are the fact "the washington post" carries the first stage front-page story is not much of the difference but that is a different subject but i do not see the value of the process with

the victim of the internet which is all about disrupting the intermediaries. if you compare them, even though they have not launched yet but they would be able to have people up lowered this stuff in a way that wikileaks wants to but the future of wikileaks itself, that is why i argue that assange should become the leader for building internet infrastructure because that idea is already emerging to remain in

medicis them or a payment system for the hosting system so at a great expense because of the reaction people have suddenly understood that they realize to have the government the most important and powerful on the internet or the intermediary because they would be able to pursue the us. but then you have to address that problem. so maybe assange should work more on those projects. >> host: that is right. and talk about the u.s.

piece what are the consequences more through the cyber realists that you propose. with three nationalization of the internet to so you analyze and they remain a u.s. company with values good and bad. but there are some negative consequences and proceed down the road and as a result of people believe -- been nearly conscious and noting the internet space? >> first with the attempt to embrace throughout twitter

or facebook there is the fear that twitter is just a cover for governments and i am simplifying but if this is how some governments proceed, we cannot acknowledge what the second aspect with the inherent contradictions of the freedom agenda america and law-enforcement actually also is easier for them with mitigation surveillance and then asking the same confidence from the freedom around the globe with the back door into the system. so what you end up with is government's concern about the fact american technology

may simply be a reliable. and the conversations and as a result i think it is a trend, from russia and china and turkey where they tried to replicate the key functions with the information society although i doubt they come from there but but then to cultivate national champions who would be able to do it all and store the data and respond to any demands that come from national government.

and beginning to see the problems for research in motion governments want to keep the data at home because they want to have access to it. with those governments building email systems and the second trend that i am seeing, is about using american brands and it was very interesting that in russia for example,, to sign this long executive order of of the republic institutions by 2015 and some of his

economic considerations but such efforts by fears of a proprietary software, if you compare to the open source versions, that minimizes the risk sonat you have the iranian information and now saying to have the open source operating system because they fear for a good reason that nuclear facilities would compromise their proprietary western software. and then you see some signs

some of it is trying to maintain the information and sovereignty of their hard rather and the software but to and the european union governments are reluctant because they fear the same thing and some of it is driven by the fears but they have the national regime change factor with their freedom agenda, it makes it easier with the american technology. >> host: just to pull back to the high altar to lessens the book raises, this is an

american audience, but the book is largely geared to the american audience, we have been taught to our second decade of be the been the internet is transforming our world very largely even though it is perplexing and disruptive. where do you come down at this point* to recognizing as you may be evolving, what is wrong with having the anti-corruption website and azerbaijani lawyer in russia or mobilizing people in iran to support the protest movement it is a powerful tool for any kind of organization or activity as we know it so what is wrong with that? are you falling prey to a certain extent the very thing that you critique that it is a tool it could be

good or bad? >> guest: i should make the disclaimer that i also m. affiliated days on the board. >> host: you are not against democratization and? >> no no. it is how we actually use information. to me, it is no question but so many of the initiatives everything that is happening, all of them are good. but the question is someone who has been a limited with resources, and talk about the less government you here's the baggage that is

likely to be interpreted in some countries who are more than others that is the american per cent saying that but my question is how you ask someone who has good intentions? or how to maximize the impact of the previous history this is why i tried to outline this strategy in the book because right now the entire paradigm the

solutions are no longer tenable. also with the assumptions government's but you can no nothing and if you don't know much about the culture of political or social force it is unlikely to realize the impact you would have on it. that my a agenda in the book is to transform the debate the impact of the internet and abstract sobriquet about theorizing that to other

conditions cities to be more attentive if you think there are a good guys and nothing in between, then you just analyze it just means 99% of the changes to russia's you have to consider the nationalism, ethnic minorities in russia, i am not sure he is not doing everything. [laughter] >> host: not always for the good. >> guest: not everything for the good because many as a democratization and so yes. but before we get to this

point*, refers need to examine the political culture and we are bound to induct different policies that we can abrogate. but the problem is that there are differences in terms that we have a lot of smart people to spend their days thinking very hard with russia and egypt where do the exact opposite to think very hard and i side with the camp because i don't think there is so much complexity that lowers the transaction costs and we

just don't know how those three factors unless you know, what the environment is like. >> host: that is almost as good a place as any to bring in your voice as well. to hear what you have to say. is a conversation we will have five and 10 years from now. [laughter] but i am struck in many ways of the parallels the examples given the internet facilitates in rye shot as much or more than it facilitates western democracy. and look at al qaeda on the internet. that challenges our notions here it is a push for good

but it turns out to be the incredibly effective tool to facilitate the work of a small underground group that wishes to communicate anonymously between countries and continent's and raychem to the realization of that that probably was not immediately obvious for about if we can get your questions we will do as many as we can. we will start here in the furrow and hope to move backwards. >> faq for the talk and the

book. some zero hour own government has been requesting twitter records for those who may have been looking for wikileaks every share. his the subcommittee is upset that apparently there has been cyberattack by members of our intelligence community with other nations they were not informed of. so we are undoubtedly see our own government involved. to see any efforts made in the future and how does this balance out against what you fear of other governments may be doing? >> guest: the u.s.

government? who do expect? >> congress of some form. [laughter] >> guest: is a tough one. definitely there are signs the u.s. government has much more concerned about the impact up until now because of wikileaks because now they suddenly discovered from the people around the globe can launch a cyberattack on a pile. but also in europe and elsewhere they feel passionate about wikileaks. but with the internet, with what it poses come i am just

not sure the progress is any less jaded of those of the internet. those who are extremely concerned about the internet calling for the kill switch or the button to turn it off four prosecute anyone connected with wikileaks. i do not think this changeover come. they appear much more aggressive than the government themselves and their the ones with the department of justice who have the reaction to assange. if anything the change will come probably and the pressure will come from some of the gigs on parts of the

company's those from silicon valley who are concerned with that action. i don't know if there pressure of civil society but going for the u.s. i don't think that is a change for the better but for the worse. so to have a such power to shape that. i also don't think fact is not russia and china and it is speaking out to an

american and companies and asked support from cyber warfare and also in the european states if you look at the cyber army, the bench that call themselves the official entity call themselves the cyber army as the cyber attacks come to the defense is not a bad idea but i don't think the europeans are any less when it comes to pay being cyberspace than america. >> host: the next section is the cyber reserve board. more questions? >> with the contribution, i

would like to suggest what do suggests? for the internet to their own advantage? some to become the nation's and each country stuck with their own information and this will be harmful for international relation. thank you. >> as far as the initial

question that which opponents of and obligate at climate change some of that is done deliberately by small businesses and what not. on the level of information or misinformation that is happening. but look at the biggest subject of debate over climate change was a bench of emails because of that haq sir in england so we

definitely be seeing some efforts or to present the evidence. but all that apply as universally with climate change. but with this new environment to me much more thoughtful but especially as it applies to wikileaks, are those the documents that can only be on a computer and others that cannot share them. also on the adr providing documents. that will come in but i do not say anything of climate change per se but the

servers are genuine have the energy but other than that to i do not see much of a connection. [laughter] >> i think you agree the internet is a disruptive technology and generally a rule that smaller organizations respond better to disruptive technology than large and so and what ways is responding to the challenge of internet be disruptive for countries like iran and china and russia internally? >> i think they are adapting much faster than most of us thought. i have to go with the

assumption and think they start having worthy economy collapses. of the talk of the revolution and the globalization with the technology and information. and up until 2005 or 2006, "the world is flat" but still very much information and i do think they have adopted to the world much better and some of that has happened because the cost of the private

sector, of the companies that came to make money coming to take on the cost of ownership with said chinese private company is waiting and local compounds from the website. the government itself from a higher staff and the company's need to take care of that. but also what is happening with the more provocative ideas in the book is also a greater degree of customization and censorship happening right now. we are beginning to see smarter systems emerging to basically make a decision on the spot what needs to be censored not only on the content of what is access but the user that is planning to access information. my prediction is what you

will be seeing is in a country like china those in the economy, with the internet use, they have other investment bankers and on the other hand, looking at what human-rights activists it would be the local government made the internet after suspicious websites and of course, this will help the government is the dictators dilemma. or basically suffer the consequences. but to me much more

selective. about what? it is driven by the same logic of digital advertising has driven it is about customization showing what corresponds to the browsing experience. the only difference is essentially the most relevant application you will just be banned but the logic is the same and that is what drives and it is all about customization that is one way that the government's manage the environment. >> host: you need to be subversive thinking investment banker in china to become the democracy advocate. we will see if they sensor that. i think we have time for one or two more questions. >>

>> i am nearly done with the book and have been enjoying it very much. my question has to do with the state department missteps as you describe them. you do a good job of copying the bubble of utopianism and i guess my own feeling of the state department's work of what they have been trying to do is introduce the old fashioned bureaucracy into new technology and the missteps have been caused by the excess of success to bring the technology of the work of other departments and you do a good job of describing the mistakes that were made and