description of what we did. so i think the mall and i would like to thank ron brownstein the distinguished american columnist for "the los angeles times" and other outlets who have been involved in all of this from the beginning and was intimately involved in the coverage of my 92 campaign when we began to raise all of these issues in public debate in an election context for the first time, for his willingness to come here and moderate the panel. so let's welcome the panel and get on with the proceedings. [applause] >> thank you mr. president. good morning everybody.

i'm ron brownstein and the president has introduced our distinguished panel here. let me start with an issue that the president clinton race because the title of our panel is the dayton accords and the beginning of of 21st century diplomacy but the dayton accords are not the beginning of the story in bosnia. during the last two years of the george h. w. bush presidency and the first years of the present clinton administration there was a great deal -- richard holbrooke who we have mentioned several times wrote on the first page of this memoir about dayton between 1991 in 1995 the international response to this catastrophe was at best uncertain and at worst a polling. why did it take so long for the u.s. and europe together to intervene with decisive force in bosnia? >> well i think first of all let me say, thing from listening to president clinton you all know how fabulous it was to work for him. every day it was exciting and you can see how his mind works and how dedicated he was to what

he was doing and it was an honor and a pleasure to be able to work with you mr. president. i think the hard part has to do with the fact that, as he said, that we were so focused on the cold war and fighting the soviet union. the other part is that there had been the gulf war. there had been a war. we had one it apparently at the time in a way that tired of people out, and at the same time, there were a lot of other things going on. i think one of the hard parts when you look back at history is that you forget a lot of the context. we had a humanitarian relief organization -- operation in somalia. verity began to be refugees coming out of haiti and something was happening all the time, and as the president said, people were ready for a peace dividend. they did not want to get involved and we have spent 50 years looking at the world through the soviet prison.

and besides, and i take this very personally. i wasn't born in the united states. i was born in czechoslovakia and for me munich was a very essential part and people used to say why should we do something about the country that we can't pronounce in a faraway place. all of a sudden the same issue is going on in the balkans that were described as a bunch of tribes that had never gotten along, and so people didn't know why they should do this. and so, think the president has talked about the economy stupid and also there were all kinds of other issues and i think it was hard as you said to motivate people but you have to understand the context of so many other things going on at the same time? >> your perspective from your position on the ground on these initial years and what inhibited action? >> well, it is striking and president clinton discussed the criticism which on the ground i heard every day.

why aren't you doing more. you are the one country that is in a position to do this. frankly at the beginning there was disappointment with president clinton who had in the campaign indicated that he would do something. the situation had become more complex from when he spoke in august of 92 about lift and strike. that is because a the war had broken out in bosnia between the croatian forces in bosnia and the bosnians as they were called in, the muslim forces, the government. as long as that were continued there is no practical way for assistance to get through to the bosnian government and so when i arrived i was one of president clinton's first appointees to arrive on the scene. my job is to minimize the violence between the two and to stop the atrocities against bosnian prisoners, get

humanitarian supplies. i said to cable the first week which i included a joke describing the situation in stereo bow, a joke that was going around sarajevo was what was the difference between the serbs have cut off gas to sarajevo which meant there was no water, no way to boiled -- soak the water on the ground puddles cholera epidemic. the joke that was circulating was very -- what was the difference between scenario where and auschwitz elisa nash was they had gas. perhaps tasteless, it went to the president he issued an ultimatum in july of 93 to the serbs who turned back on the gas and that humanitarian crisis was defused. the next step was to end the war between the muslims and the croats. we succeeded in doing that in negotiations that took place in croatia. a lot of pressure on the croatian president who wanted to -- divide up bosnia but he was persuaded to change course.

we got the alliance between the two in the washington agreement in president clinton's presence in march of 94 and then came a critical decision which president clinton discussed and i would like to say a word about that. president came to me and he said the bosnian government, the president whose son is here today has asked what would be the u.s. attitude if we permit arms to transfer our territory to go to the bosnian government? some of them are coming from iran he said. but that wasn't -- most of them are coming from the black market, interesting lead from russia. president clinton took the decision, which i thought was the right one and i carried out to tell him we don't object. he actually had hoped i think for the opposite decision because he didn't really like the end of the muslim-croat war.

he still had territorial ambitions there. the arms begin to flow. when i saw president just before he died he said that was the single most important thing the u.s. did that lead to peace. because it reversed a situation in which the serbs had all the arms and were in danger of being exterminated. the battlefield changed and so i think it was a very significant set of steps. the washington agreement, this decision that led to dayton. it wasn't something that happened all of a sudden and 95. speak we are thinking about 91, 92, 93 and 94 and it is hard to generalize but was the military skeptical of greater involvement or were their key decision-makers that thought they could play a useful role in helping to bring this to a close? >> before i answer that i just want to say what a pleasure it is for me to be here with madeline and sandy berger and peter galbraith and especially with president clinton, because

when i think back on those years there really was unified leadership in the united states government. there was a man in charge who had vision. he had courage and really took us to where we needed to go. the military wasn't really part of that vision and i mean, colin powell explained it when he was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and his attitude came down to this. he says i tell them, i go to the meetings and i would say tell us what -- tell us what you want us to do and i will tell you what it takes. but i'm not going to help you do the policy. so the military was in sort of a reactive mode in this. i got there in the spring of 1994 and every weekend there was a crisis. it was one challenge, it was north korea, it was haiti, it was to shoot down aircraft in bosnia. i had no idea because from the outside you couldn't see any of this and inside inside the military institution we were still recovering from the war in iraq. we were digesting the lessons learned. we ran to precision strike,

high technology. if you could see the ground, you could control it. and we were also wrestling with the bad memories of vietnam, and there were two bad memories in particular that stuck. one was the so-called weinberger doctrine, which actually general powell cooked up in the early 1980s which says you have to have decisive force. we call that overwhelming force at first and that was too much and became decisive. and so we had a tendency to worst-case what the opposition would be and we would, there were some close to people saying it would take hundreds of thousands of troops to solve this problem and we can't afford it so let's stay out of it. and there was also a sense that maybe there was an idealistic strain in the american political scene but when the going got tough, and he started to take casualties, the idealist wouldn't be with you and the military would be blamed so therefore let's be very cautious about getting committed. so that was the military posture

in all the things that peter were talking about, they were by standing. >> you are describing a posture that is not so much reactive as resistive on those two final points. >> i have to speak up on us and i have to start this by saying colin powell and i are very close today. but what happened was, and i think peter was saying he was on the ground and that people kept asking him what is going on. i was at the u.n.. i was known as ultimate unrolled madeline and basically, every day people would say, why aren't you doing something? and i actually saw more different diplomats than any other diplomat. i would come to meetings and talk about this. and so as i said it was the end of the gulf war and colin powell was come into our meetings. he is big, handsome, the hero of the western world and i was a mere mortal female civilian are again with him about the use of

force. and i kept saying you have got to do something and they would have these arguments, and he is a brilliant briefer. he had his little red pointer and he would take us up a hill and we would be able to take it that it would take a zillion troops and a zillion dollars and what would i say to sergeant's mother when he stepped on a landmine? i finally said what he is saving all the soldiers for? he got furious at me and he wrote about book are cohesively practically a given an aneurysm from us and he patiently had to explain to me. so this book came out. lee had won, and so i called them up and i said colin patiently? he said i had to do it patiently. you didn't understand anything. he sent me his book and he wrote patiently colin. i signed it forcefully, madeline. [laughter]

>> let me ask you of of the list of issues and it goes to some of the comments the former president made. the european should take the lead on the problem, and as you mentioned as i think the president mentioned when christopher secretary of state went over to europe in the spring of 1990 they were very unsatisfactory series of meetings that left without a clear direction or a plan. it seemed in addition to the fact that you mention mentioned in those first months, the administration was struggling with what was the right talents in the post-cold war period back in consulting with allies? >> frankly that was something that the first president bush had been working on and we really did think that the europeans were ready to take some responsibility. they were doing pretty well economically. nato was functioning and i think we had a sense that this was in the heart of europe and why couldn't they do something about

it and it was very frustrating. at the u.n., it was very frustrating because the europeans there, i would go to a european ambassador and i would say i need your help on a vote and they would say can help you because the e.u. does not yet have a common position and then two days later i go to the stage as state as they can you help in now? they said king help you the e.u. does have a common position so it was very frustrating. i think the comment the comments the president made about -- had in fact kind of thought that they would be able to handle it. this was not ours -- fight but it was very hard. i think we did learn ms that we needed to know what we wanted to do before we went to consult, that you needed to fight -- figure out how the system works but what i think is so interesting about all of this is that the president talked about this. this was a period of institution building. i love being ambassador to the u.n. because what we thought was that the u.n. really could function in a way that it not

been able to during the cold war because it was paralyzed. by the veto and peacekeeping operations could in fact supplement or take takeover at the beginning on military activities, and it was a very exciting period in terms of looking at institution building that we thought was the beginning of the 21st century. i do think we offered more than anybody, president clinton kept building bridges to the 21st century, and so this was one of the aspects that we were looking out and it was very very deliberate. it was deliberate to expand nato and it was delivered to use aligned structures and the u.n. to be able to deal with the post-cold war problem. >> peter from your perspective where you were on the idea of europe taking the lead on this, did that seem to you of a plausible outcome or were you dubious of that from early on? how did you kind of assess that? >> there was a huge failure of

institutions. richard holbrooke, whose wife is here, and i would like to say hello to her. he describes this as the greatest failure of collective security since the second world war. in the sense that the idea of the u.n. really was a collective security treaty. if there is a country that is an aggressor we all gang up on the aggressor and presumably the aggression is deterred. it had worked against iraq when they invaded kuwait. and it was failing here. the europeans had said initially and 91, when this war broke out actually in croatia, and let's not forget the president of croatia is here, 15,000 people died in that war. that is europe's second deadliest war cents the second world war, but the europeans said we will handle it. and then, they sent a troika.

that was the leadership of the european union that consisted of luxembourg, portugal and the netherlands in an environment in eastern europe where military power counted. that was not a very impressive representation of europe. i don't mean to fall to the individuals. it is how the european system worked at that time. and so, certainly by 93, people in the region had given up. what gave the u.s. so much power was first the impression that it had been left from our spectacular military success in gulf war one, this is that we were invincible and one of the things about having all of this military technology is that it is great until you actually use it when you get locked down in iraq and afghanistan. than it is not so impressive but in those days it looked absolutely terrific. and second they were the last resort. and so when i would kind of

carry out my diplomatic assignments and sometimes i felt like you know, it was almost the voice of god here because people would never say no we won't do it. touche men would never say no. he would say yes, yes you are exactly right. we will try to do better and then when i would try to come back a few days later nothing would happen and he would say we did our best that we couldn't get it done. so we had enormous influence in this particular situation, which probably may well be unique. >> generals openly began, in 1995 when we take a more assertive role and a stronger leadership role and driving toward the bombing and using all of the tools of diplomacy what is the reaction of the europeans and particularly the russians as well as we move i think is the secretary said from a consultation to saying this is what we want? how did they react when we took a more cerebral? >> first of all the president had a good relationship with

president yeltsin in this and the set the basis for everything and we knew that but there were different strains in the and the russian government that came across. we had a member of -- we had a russian ambassador who was the foreign minister. igor was a wonderful guy. i used to swim at him at dayton every morning and he spoke a little bit of english and i spoke a little bit of russian. he was well-meaning and he would be passed richard holbrooke would pass in the memos and say, ambassador take a look at this. igor.you like this? igor would quickly scan it and we think he understood it, but he wouldn't be able to object. at the russian military level they were very cynical about we were doing but they also knew it, and i was on a trip to monaco -- in the middle of the day with strobe talbott and and

one of my russian counterparts came up to me and he said, you americans, we know what you are doing. he said, you say you are going going -- [inaudible] you are going into bosnia and that is our part of europe. and you say you will be gone in a year. i said yeah m, we are russians, we know better. he said but don't worry, we would do the same thing in your position. and save bayview did as part of the geostrategic chest that was going on. they didn't like it that they tolerated it because we had guys like igor who was western oriented and tried to make the relationship work and deepen the understanding president clinton had with yeltsin. we brought the russians on board. >> the journalist in me wishes i could bring the former president back of stage iv this question i'm asking to you madam secretary because it goes to what you were saying before.

your point about consultation with direction worse is the kind of consultation casting around for ideas. i'm wondering, do you view the decisions of 95, that the whole bombing, the concentrated diplomacy as a change in president clinton and the administration's view of how america's, how america would pursue its role in the world? was at a turning point in perhaps on the way toward your terminology of the indispensable nation later in the decade? >> is ashley the set -- first one is that indispensable nation. the bottom line here is that i believe that it was an evolution, that president clinton -- i remember when i got interviewed for my job at the u.n. and president clinton made very clear to me that he saw american leadership within a setting where we worked with other countries. that in fact was of course the multiplier, that the u.s. in conjunction with our allies to

do much more than just a unilaterally telling everybody what we were supposed to do. so i think it was an evolution, but there was a way of figuring out that if the europeans and others were kind of being really dillydallying is i guess the best word that we in fact did have to take a leadership role, but it was a very interesting way to think about how things should be done. as peter said, the truth is that the first president bush had in fact done a good job on building the coalition on. and that was a good model, and in what president clinton did i think was taken to the next level and that we did know when we wanted to do something how to do it. and frankly, what we did was use -- i teach a quartz on this. we used every tool in the national security toolbox. clearly bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy. we use a lot. re-created the war crimes -- war

crimes tribunal. these people to murley were molly were indicted. we used carrots of aid to country if they decide to help. we use sanctions. we used the threat of military force and we use military force and we use richard holbrooke. so i think that really was an amazing way -- and accusing a set of tools that one has in conducting it, but mainly we had a president who directed it and believed it and understood the role that they can m had to take >> peter from where you stood, did the way the administration approach this problem and 95 represent a change or an evolution from the way they did when they first came in? >> it was an evolution, but i think it is important that we have a broader appreciation of the historic record because there is a lot of talk about the bombing as being the turning point. not at all. what it was was actually a

croatian military offensive operation star that took place in august. that involved, and this is the way the world is, some pretty tough moral choices. for croatians had threatened -- there was an enclave in bosnia with 160,000 people in november of 94. the serbs surrounded part of occupied korisha on one side. the serbs were squeezing it. at that time the croatians had indicated they might launch an offensive to liberate it. the instructions i got were very strong, tell them know we don' want a wider war. then came, in july of 95 the murder of 7000 men and boys. the danger of the same thing would happen in -- the same question from the croatians and frankly our concern was that instead of 7000 we might see 40,000 men and boys murdered,

but we also knew that given touchman's nationals behavior that there would be consequences for the population in the serb-held areas which korisha got attacked. it was a tough choice. we made the choice. we gave the croatians, well a no light which they interpreted as a green light. it change the military balance. the peace plan, dayton was based on on a 51% or the federation, 49% of the serbs. in the serbs had 70% they had no interest. when they all of a sudden had 45% they found 49% a lot more interesting. the nato bombing helped, but it was a series of steps that led to that. >> general let me ask you about the role of nato because obviously it is a turning point in using the word evolution in nato's evolution and we see it moving in another direction after that, kosovo and afghanistan. talk about bosnia and its impact

on on nato's vision of its role in the way it operated. >> well nato had already done some missions in and the bosnian area, so we had to exercise his. we had an air exercise and we had a seaborne exercise. we just weren't on the ground as nato in the 94/95 period. britain and france both have their forces under u.n. command in bosnia, and in the summer of 95, after he failed bosnian offensive to break out of sarajevo and the counterattack by the serbs, which impacted the new french president decided he would reinforce and and a british one along with it so they put artillery on top of it and suddenly the british and french role became muscular. the previous idea on peacekeeping missions these are forces that there blew haddad and not let terry forces. they're there to provide insurance but with the presence

of artillery suddenly they become much more muscular. this was the beginning then of talking about a real nato role because if you are going to talk about real forces and you need real command and control and really just takes, and real reconnaissance and intelligence not just dance of soldiers with blue helmets. and so, then in the summer of 1995, after the schirripa nature massacre everyone got serious. we began also to deal with nato as the alliance and talk about a prospective nato role in the occupation. >> you know, you talk about period after the agreement. there was a lot of skepticism urgently about whether this could hold. india and in the book richard holbrooke to shreds the first month is rocky and yet it has endured probably more than many people expected at the time. what allow this to ultimately take root? >> first of all, i think that

people wanted to have peace. the killing there was really dreadful, and the stories that both wes and peter have talked about and president clinton, and i think that they were ready, but also there was international support for it. it was rocky, but i mean the europeans took part, the u.n. to heart. we obviously did an awful lot, but it was a temple and it continues not to be simple. i to tell one story that just exemplifies this. and 97 when i became secretary of state i went to see touchman and we were trying to were cut away that out of bosnia there could be a way out through a bridge that came from bridgeville and i asked his permission to get this bridge opened, so that bosnia would be totally landlocked. so there was going to be a big ceremony, and as you know, according to the dayton accords, there were three prime minister's. so, and this is a true story. we get there, and one of my press assistants had wanted a picture of us on the bridge.

there were a lot of suits around and nobody had on name tags. she finally said okay, what everybody who is the prime minister raised his hand? so three people raise their hands. the others left that it is an example of a problem. so i think the issue was how in fact you could get this complicated system to work and it still is an issue and i hope our next panel talks about it but it what it showed to me is that you can always check off the problem has done. it has to be managed, and in many ways the international community has been a part of this and needs to continue to be a part of this. by what we learn in bosnia we also took to kosovo and what we are trying to do now is to bring serbia and this whole region into europe and go back to the original idea of a europe that is free and that came out of dayton and all the various evolutions. >> peter your assessment of that period and xp i think i would like to say something about what it was that was accomplished.

first, it is something very much in human terms. i saw this almost every day. 40 cologne matters from us so grab there was the frontline and there were refugees living in houses and children, babies dying for absence of medical care. between the contested sides. nevermind the massacres that occurred from time to time. and that ended. also, it wasn't a sure thing. it was a sure thing that dayton was going to be successful. there was a lot of skill and again i wished richard holbrooke were here on the panel, because he really had a huge amount with the comp which meant of support from president clinton and others who were involved, and his team. but let's consider what the alternative might be.

we might be discussing here in 2011 year 20 of the bosnia croatia wars. we might -- a cyprus in which serbs occupy a part of the country and the state of permanent hostility. bosnia, as a source of ongoing conflict, no doubt a hotbed for terrorism. the impact that might have had on europe. it was profoundly demoralizing to europe but nevermind the fact that the presence of the refugees, the what is said about the u.n. and frankly it is the u.n. mission that kept people alive. it was a failure in its broader purposes. so there was a lot, a lot that resulted from this success and while the constitution of bosnia as a unified state is far from perfect, and these days you hear a lot of criticism of dayton and

at the dayton constitution. the fact is that at dayton we were not seeking to create a perfect country. we were seeking to end the war, and we did. nobody has died in hostile action since 1995, 16 years. that is a remarkable achievement. >> let me ask, our time is beginning to run down so i want to asked to forward any questions. let me start with you madam secretary because you noted this was a case where he used all the tools in our toolbox a casebook study of what some call coercive diplomacy. military force diplomatic pressure and consensus building. obviously they can -- and circumstances are different but is there anything that models that can tell us are applied to the challenges we face now in afghanistan and pakistan even with the unrest in the arab world? are there lessons from that kind of integrated approach to the other problems we face today? >> well i do think that first of all, you know, i have said that

there there are not at lot a lot of tools in the toolbox. here we are the most powerful country in the world and there are not a lot of tools, but what i think we have learned is to try to use them together, and i was asked to help on that developing the nato, the new nato strategic concept. what is interesting is that they took the lessons of the balkans to some extent into afghanistan to talk about what they call a comprehensive approach, where in fact you did the military and civilian activities together, where you learn lessons that you cannot solve all the problems militarily, that you have to have a civilian component in terms of reconstruction and in terms of the political work, in terms of getting the population to understand what is going on, and also to have alliances. i think that is one of the ways that the lessons can be learned about how you use which institution, but you need to mix and match on these tools. and i think that is finally what

is going on, but it is not easy and it is not easy, and i think sandy berger can speak to this better than anybody, is to have the american system together and terms of getting the bureaucracy to agree on something. we have some internal issues, and i think that you need to move the process forward. but it is internal to the u.s. and then consultation with the allies, but it has to be done anywhere where you know what you want, as i said. sometimes you actually call up an ally and say, wouldn't you like to suggest that instead of me suggesting it? it sometimes goes down better. >> general. >> i think you have to have the right conditions on the ground, and that is one of the most important lessons from dayton is that not only did we use all the tools in the toolbox, and we consult with allies and friends and others in the region, but we set the conditions and i want to go back to what richard holbrooke did. one of the critical moments in

the croatian offensive was really grinding forward, richard called and i don't know whether came from him or it came from washington but we marched in on a sunday morning. he went to see touchman and he said stop, and every member of the ministry of defense said wait a minute we are about to take -- they are in complete disarray. they are shooting. error deserters in the streets. milosevic has sent a new general to take charge. this is the opportunity. we will be there within a week and you want us to stop? he said, stopped. and they stopped. of course after that, it never got going again, but that was the 514/41 boundary. in the serbs did know they couldn't get going again. and richard saw that and he got the conditions on the ground said. the other thing about this, you have got to have the right

personality. you have got to have the ability to put all of the pieces together. richard holbrooke was the right personality and he did it at dayton and he did it with a lot of help from a lot of people but it was solely his responsibility to make it happen inside dayton and he basically conceded and did it. there were a lot of us who saw pieces and bits of it. i couldn't begin to tell you all the pieces of it, but he'd bullied and cajoled and weasel than flattered and did everything in the world to bring those groups together and finally got the key concession on. at the end. so, even when you use all the tools and even when he set the conditions right on the ground, and even went with him all the rest, there's a certain amount of chemistry and a certain amount of pressure that has to occur to bring the agreement to a close. >> peter you are obviously close to the current challenge as well as involved in the bosnian challenge. your thoughts about whether there is anything that can teach us about what we are dealing

with an actress dan? >> let me turn to that but i would like to add something to wes' story because i listened to the take of the meeting that and i had with touchman alone. where did i listen to it? in the war crimes tribunal. one of four trials that i testified at but i have to say wes it wasn't quite as unambiguous as that, but in any event. what was extraordinary was the fact that if the outcome of this, were these trials. when the tribunal was set up every journalist said to me, oh this is a cynical exercise because you aren't really prepared to do something and yet all but two of the people who have been indicted have gone to the hague or are dead or died in the process of being arrested and have gone through this process. i have to tell you as a diplomat, there is nothing that is given the arm more pleasure than testifying at those trials.

normally what you do is you take a lot of abuse from terrible people and some of these were terrible people and in the end, all you can do is when you finally retired to write your memoirs but nobody's going to read them and they are probably already did. i got to put people in jail. i mean real justice. the second i would make about your question because i've actually been involved in iraq and served in afghanistan, what are the lessons? i think one big lesson i would say is don't try to apply to many lessons. what came out of bosnia was the sense that the elections were held too soon in bosnia. the nationalist parties one. and that lesson was then applied to iraq. and where we had a prolonged occupation which was a disastrous course of action. he would have been much better off in that case to have quick elections and frankly from my experience in afghanistan, i can't see anything that is really applicable to bosnia except to have to disappoint. in croatia bosnia we have partners and having partners is

key to success. in afghanistan we don't have a partner and yet we have a strategy that requires a partner and that is why it isn't working in my opinion. >> one final thing. we are down torah last few minutes but i want to start with you madam secretary. you know it wasn't exactly, even though the president talked about where the internet and cell phones are, it was exactly long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but it was a different world and the sense that people talked about the '90s and the early part of the 21st century is kind of a unipolar moment when the u.s. really was challenge with any other nation for world supremacy. is the model of how we pursued our goals in the world than still applicable today when we are talking about a much greater diffusion of power? is the vision of the u.s. as the indispensable nation still the way we should be trying to lead the world today? >> first of all, think you have to remember there is nothing about the definition of

indispensable which says alone. it just means that you have to be a part of it, engaged and part of what i meant when i said i think the president -- the american people needed to understand the things that happened in some faraway place actually affected us at home and that are in gauge meant was something that was very important. i believe that continues to today. but it does need to be done within a structure that respects other countries and that does -- americans don't like the word multilateralism. it has too many syllables and and and andism. the bottom line is it is partnership and so i think we gain by that and i think that model works, but i truly do not think we are the most powerful country in the world. we have a little bit of a screwed up economic situation at the moment but we are the most powerful country, but we need to do it in combination with other countries and that is the model that i think comes out of the

end of of the 20th century. >> and still true that we need to knew where we are going. wheel smiley have to have a clear direction to drive that? >> i think the issue and one of the issues in bosnia is what is the national interest? there are lots of ways to define it. the question is whether it is just a geostrategic or whether it also has a moral component to it. and i do believe that american values in terms of not letting people be massacred and ethnically cleanse and all is part of our national interest. everybody defines a little bit differently and it takes exactly that kind of leadership to explain it and why would you want to put people in harm's way because something is happening somewhere else? and you can neither explain it because it does affect us ultimately physically or does affect our moral values. >> general dril-quip, is the way we exert leadership in the world today -- should it be different than it was at the point of dayton and bosnia? >> well it is going to be different because the power relationships are different.

that i want to just reinforce the idea of the indispensable nation. i think america is still the greatest power, still has the greatest values, still has the greatest credibility. we deliver, and we still are the indispensable nation but others have more capacity to contribute and one of the things we have got to do is find ways to engage them with us and get their contributions. >> peter you have been up close with some of our greatest successes in their greatest setbacks of the last 20 years. what are your thoughts about how the nature of our leadership today and how it compares to say in the dayton. max? >> i think the dayton period and frankly the leadership of president clinton was unique. inevitably, america's relative position in the world was going to decline. i think the previous administration accelerated that decline with some very poor choices in terms of places that

it pursued issues. i think one of the other lessons of bosnia and the wars in the balkans is just how interconnected we are as people on this planet. there was a hope on the part of policymakers, the first bush of administration that didn't want another foreign-policy venture in an election year that they were in trouble, the beginning of the clinton administration on the part of many who wanted to focus on other things, that we could set this aside. and in that interconnected world and christianity christian armand porro who was going to be originally be the moderator i thought to some degree she and colbert might share the peace prize because she exemplified a press that put what was happening in bosnia in our faces. we saw the people who were being shot at i snipers were not some faceless people. they were women in high heels, children, people who looked a

lot like us. and i think that is very important again we blip in a world where we have this kind of immediacy with what is going on in each of. right now on the square. so i think that is another of the big lessons of bosnia. >> it is really a milestone in recognizing our shared humanity. i think i can speak for everyone in the audience when i say it is just an incredible tour not only the immediate issues in dayton. will you join me in thanking this terrific panel. [applause] [applause]

>> next to look at digital privacy with leading thinkers in the field of internet privacy and protection of personal data. a web site founded in 1993 for journalists who work in media industry hosted this event last month. this runs about one hour and 20 minutes.

>> good morning everyone. thank you a much for coming to today's media bistro digital privacy forum. this is the first time we have had this and we have an incredibly packed and exciting list of speakers. the reason why the lights are so bright or maybe just to me is because we do have c-span in the back which is exciting and kitchen indication of just how cutting-edge you are to be here today. the fact that c-span is here. i am going to be your mc today. i'm going to make sure that the speakers run on time and make sure that you do get questions and answers after each speaker provided they don't run too long. i know a lot of the speakers will stick around as well so at the coffee break you cannot cost them by the decaf if you would like. i am a tv reporter by trade, but these days i also do media, training private media training and i teach a media workshop at media bistro on how to use video as part of your media strategy and i also host corporate web sites. webcast.

first i want to do a couple of housekeeping notes. everybody have the wifi? to the wifi is media bistro and then i don't know if it is up there, then the login is nym bistro if you want to get on the wi-fi. i think we of this life or that we can show you. also i wanted to mention that the first coffee break is it 10 times of 50 so you will get a chance again to speak to some of the speakers then if you care to added 12:30 there is going to be a box lunch across the hallway. also if you haven't come founded at the bathrooms are little bit tricky to find which is there was a personal request that somebody said could you please tell everyone where the bathroom is. if you go out here you go across and take a writing that to go across in an upstairs. so plan for about a good five minutes to visit the restroom. also i wanted to just mention the way we have our program there has been a change. in the morning we are going to be looking at the bigger issues, the bigger pictures of laying the groundwork and in the afternoon we are really looking at the business challenges and

opportunities there are for people. and i want to just point out to you, right after alexander from the guilt group, we are going to have jeff jarvis media guru jeff jarvis. used on the program but he's going to be talking about the benefits of public nest. we are not really sure if that is a word yet but we are going to mate it went by the end of today. and just two, before we start i want to take a quick informal poll to get a sense of who you are. how many of you are an in advertising or marketing? how many of you are in charge of security or privacy policy for your company? how many of you think you are going to soon have to be in charge of privacy policy? okay, very good. how many of you are concerned about too much regulation? how many of you are concerned about too little? so we have got a good, think they were a couple of hands

raised twice with those last few questions. so let's get started with our first session. is called understanding privacy in a connected age and we are going to kick off today with the bigger picture. here to do that is the founder and publisher of the web site personal democracy forum and text president.com. i've interview to myself about how the web is changing politics and he is good at putting internet issues into context, what is really happening out there. please welcome social entrepreneur andrew rasiej. [applause] >> thank you very much. good morning everybody. i would like to start this morning by telling a story about an information artist that i saw speak three years ago at a conference called pop text. his name was hasan awlaki. he added. judging story to tell because as he was in his work as an artist he would travel the world, and it just so happened that he moved out of a storage

facility in florida on september 12, 2001. and let them extended trip across the planet. showing his work. when he came back into the country as a matter fact through detroit, he was stopped at the immigration desk and asked if he would -- actually told to go down to an interrogation room and discovered very quickly that the fbi was wanting to question him about the contents of his locker because the people who owned the storage facility claimed that he had stored explosives in his locker and because he was arab, looked aras a terrorist. so he turned white, and got very scared. he went into survival mode, told them as much as he could come explained he had no connection

to an explosives. he explained his history where you travel, answer the questions about where he was going, but i was not completely satisfied and i kept reminding him along the way that they could throw him into guantánamo and put them into limbo "pray. eventually they let them go, and when they did they say well we are going to be following you. we are going to keep track of view, and you should just be aware that you are on our watch list. so when he got home, he decided he was going to do something about it because he just couldn't imagine not going back to the life that he had before this happened. so, he created, he invested a little ankle bracelet that would identify where his location is all the time and posted it on the google map. he started time stamping his life. every meal, every booking, every phone conversation, every single step of his life he photographed and recorded and then he sent it

to the fbi. he did this for about six monthh more and more photographs, more and more information about where he was going, who he was speaking with, all of his recordings of his phonecalls and everything and eventually after six months the fbi said stop. because he realized something that was really important and he saved himself, because what he did was in a market where information is the currency he flooded the market. i am not a privacy expert. actually was very interested in speaking here because at the same time the invitation came, the wikileaks saga started to unfold, and i'm sure all of you have been following in its various turns, but as it relates to this particular event, what struck me as particularly interesting is the recent decision by twitter, when asked

for, when the government asked them for information about the wikileaks account, decided to fight the secrecy order and succeeded and informed the owners of that account that they were being investigated so that the owners of that account could take steps to fight the subpoena. and until i heard that story i didn't really think about is twitter's behavior different than google's behavior or is google's behavior different than facebook's behavior so i started doing some more research on the subject and started asking myself some questions. sum of the questions are actually questions i would like to ask you. how many of you have read an entire terms of service from beginning to end, and do you do it each time you sign up for a new service?

not a single hand is raised. okay, just making that out. how many times have you seen lines at a poll station at the lincoln tunnel or george washington bridge and you see people going through the easy pass and you see all these other people and cars, some of them very nice cars not paying but paying by cash. you wonder why are these people getting hung up that easy pass? their office and not destitute, they are driving lexus. we don't want the government to track us yet they are sitting in their cars on their cell phones. [laughter] and they take a picture of their license plates when they go through the toll plaza. many of you may not notice, i didn't notice until i do this research -- if you use google books, it keeps track of your ip address the entire time you are

logged into gmail and he can keep track of exactly the pages you have read. the amazon kindle does this too. it will also keep track of what books were purchased. but those two companies will not inform you if law enforcement organization context them and ask them for that information. facebook constantly changes its privacy policies. can anyone here actually recite facebook's privacy policy or know what they currently are? every time we connect with facebook connect too to make it easier to log in our universal login we do so because it can be news but they don't realize what we are giving up in the process. recently the supreme court ruled 5-2 that the police can search your phone if they stop you and find it on your person. without warrant and without

cause. if they rifle through your e-mails, your tweets, your photographs, they are very likely to find some form of illegal behavior, an errant photograph, a comment about a transfer of some funds, and i've never thought i would -- i have always heard this thought that if you are driving in new york you are always doing something illegal because there is no way you'll be right in the middle of the lane. i didn't realize how much i was doing something illegal until i was in an accident a couple of years ago where i was loading my card from the passenger side on the streetside of the car after doing some shopping and a card that was driving by side swiped my door and took my door off with him. fortunately i wasn't hurt. i thought this was an open and shut case. i was part. of course i was going to get my insurance company to pay me. i found out there is a lie were not allowed to load your car from the streetside. if you are only allowed to get in it as quickly as possible. so you should think twice about

what you may have on your iphone or your blackberry when you are traveling anywhere. if you keep it in a concealed bag, then the police need a warrant to be able to search it. and also if you keep an encrypted come if you put a password on it, then you are protected not by -- they are not protected by the fourth amendment to be able to search you but you are protected by the first amendment about not incriminating yourself and your not required to give them your passcode. but most people don't even think about these issues and don't really think about the impact of their lives as they click and link for convenience. another important aspect for those of you who are marketers know about this is marketing. how many times you been a web site and looked at her shoes or look at a product and then went off the side and went someplace else and all of a sudden there pops up that pair of shoes, staring you in the face again and chasing after you? well there are a number of

companies that are doing massive amounts of data collection, and every packaging that data and selling it in the hopes of generating huge amounts of profits and creating convenience for you and for their customers. but personally identifiable information being stripped is a fallacy. i would highly recommend that you look up a university of colorado professor by the name of paul boehm who wrote a seminal piece about the fallacy of the databases of ruin. he points out that even though 87% of americans don't have the same zip code, birth date and sex, if you then add information about how they rated movies or what movies they rated on net? , 80% of the time the individual

can be identified. the more databases are marked, the more free identification is possible and the more databases are merged, the stronger they become and with each succeeding piece of information more matches provide more clues to identity. regulation can protect privacy only at great cost. because utility and privacy of data are intrinsically connected no regulation can increase data privacy without also decreasing data utility. and as the utility of data increases, privacy decreases. to increase privacy means a reduction in values like innovation, free speech, and security. privacy and security in fact are two completely different things. sometimes all this data can be used for good. google does search is now allowing people to be able to

since when flu epidemics might be starting, and we all love the convenience of having our basic information available when we visit a web site but every time we do, we get something up. i want to digress here for a second to just go back and talk about wikileaks for just a moment. how many of you know who bradley manning is? bradley manning is the gentleman who is charged with the crime of leaking the 250,000 cables to wikileaks and also a previous video of two reuters reporters being killed by a helicopter gunship that was shown on abc television that was the first major wikileaks release.

what many people don't know is the reason why bradley manning did that act was that he was charged with reviewing the security of individuals who were arrested in iraq for protesting and for trying to undermine the government of iraq, the government of iraq. as he was reviewing their files, these 15 or stew -- so insurgency discovered what they were doing was actually leafleting on the streets asking for more government transparency. and when he realized they were really just items for democracy and not insurgents trying to take the government down he went to his superiors that these people really shouldn't be in jail. they should be out on the street promoting democracy and his boss told him to shut up and go back to this cuticle and research more insertions.

.. and he realized with a sack, it wasn't a fair say. to us people walking on this tree and a helicopter gunship pilot demanding permission to fire on what was an ambiguous situation that ended up in the results of nine people dead and two of them were reporters. the reason i'd say the stories

we shouldn't be thinking about whether wikileaks did or didn't do the right thing. we should be thinking about whether this is since we have are beyond reproach and whether or not we have systems of accountability to make sure that there's fairness applied wherever possible. it's not wikileaks that is the broken link. it is a broken sense of trust. so my recommendation to all the buzz into the world in relation to this issue are that we need to start looking that major changes because the reality is the type knowledge is moving so fast that our laws and regulations literally cannot keep up with them. the laws particularly need to be updated to reflect the reality of a connected network and handheld printing press. you know, it is not enough for the government to promote these

tools as instruments of freedom around the world and then be angry when those same tools are being used against us by people who believe we are oppressing them. if we are going to do that we better get there make sure that we encourage the use of those tools wherever possible or that our own policies are simply beyond reproach. next, and for those of you who work for companies that she clearly focused on privacy issues, companies seek to make the knowledge of our trance. inconsistent about what information they are collect and about us and on the servers in giving people a direct and easy access to opt-in or opt-out. they also need to develop standards for informing people about information that will or will not share with government authorities and circumstances.

they need to inform us we take the same steps to protect in our information the cloud as they would document -- as you do for protecting document in our own home. and finally, these companies need to take responsibility of discourse and the networks they were profiting from and that they shouldn't necessarily run for the hills because angry rhetoric is being touted by some politicians or as a hint of criminal investigation and throw them off their networks. would wikileaks is off its network for donations, it was still possible to make a donation to the ku klux klan. but lastly may be the most important thing is we need to educate ourselves about what is that stake each time we buy a

new ipod, sign up for another two-year contract from bryson, post a photo on facebook were simply drive through a tollbooth or swipe a mastercard. we tacitly join a never-ending dance of data collection without a clue of what the consequences might be. there are those that will argue all this data in every click on every download in every mastercard or mastercard's wife will make our lives more convenient, efficient and safer and as i mentioned a couple of cases they actually do. we never seem to ask ourselves under this technological spell what price are we going to pay? what we do in the machinery becomes so powerful we can't stop it or step it back and undo it and get back to the personal privacy that we thought we had in a free society of yesteryear? i hope you agree with me that to

ensure a future where citizens are ultimately calling the shots, we arm ourselves with the best, most timely and accurate data and information we can. and ironically this is the same reason julian astonished that he created wikileaks. thank you very much. [applause] >> okay, i think we have time for a couple questions go quicker you can either step up to the make great care or i can come and get the microphone to you. we have to make sure you tap into the microphone or else no one will be able to hear you on c-span. does anybody have a question to start off with? >> i have a question. i know you do a lot of work with the obama administration. so far, how would you give their use of tech knowledge and in terms of transparency, how would you rate that?

>> welcome if they gave them a grade would be something like a c+. one of the little known facts that people don't realize when we change administrations in our democracy is that we actually go back eight years when we change parties. there is only nine months in a transition. i'm sorry, nine weeks in a transition period and not nine weeks it's hard to find people who know what the steering wheel of government is. the democrats go back to the people that had their handbook eight years before. the reason i mention that it's because what we really cut with the obama administration was the clinton white house. and with that, we had governmental thinking it's very much 20th century and very much top down. so even though there are some really great 20th century in the obama in frustration to abuse the internet vary extensively and as they produced a fantastic open government direct is, getting every single

agency to actually comply is very, very hard. there are those who cost to mention those who don't understand that. there are those who are just lazy because of civil service rules and regulations. so in addition, i give them ana. an execution, i give them as c. or c+. >> we have time for one more question. state your name and title. >> on kerman chanel for a median bistro. a very eye-opening presentation. taken on the role of the devil's advocate, what do you say to people who say i have nothing to hide. if the police confiscate my cell phone, let them have at it. how do you warn people who are not concerned about potential dangers quiet >> well, i think they are naïve because they may not think today that they are in any kind of danger, but that is because they are living under the false

impression they're democratic and free society will continue to protect them. and so, there is an inherent responsibility of every citizen not just to think about what it means for themselves, but also for their fellow citizens. and why are we always so struck by stories of injustice and injustice being served quite simply felt that way, we wouldn't be creating the legal system to adjudicate different points of view. so it just seems like the notion of the public and we talked about this earlier that there is some benefits to doing this, but the benefits are only there in the allusion in the instruction of laws that were built in the 20th century. if we are going to be so connected in this information is going to be used in ways we don't even know or may or may not want, i'm not sure that

people would be saying the same thing. >> we have to leave it there. andrew rasiej, thank you very, very much. [applause] okay, so we are moving onto what is called the personal data ecosystem. our next session if that one of the people behind what is called the personal data ecosystem. this is a website in the belief that we should all have control of how we represent ourselves digitally. she calls herself the identity woman and she is kicking it old school with a presentation on paper, rate? please welcome data sharing expert, kaliya hamlin. [applause] >> okay, i'll move. there is a reason for this

presentation innovation is that they said you can't be a bandwidth wise. i said -- you know what i have to do is get the table. those guys with heavy black tape back there can help us get these attached to the easel. we could. there we go, perfect, thanks. move it over a little bit. move it closer so that the malay. yeah, perfect, thank you. the challenges this needs to get taped. thanks. that'll do it.

brothel office at the end of the day. please put your business cards in a fishbowl in the back. one of you can take this home on the subway. okay, i think were good. thank you for inviting me here to speak with you today. the focus of my talk is to explain this new feature possibility for personal data that really haven't been explored very many places at all. and if it's between two ends of the spectrum. on the one hand you have do not track proposals so that end-users can say, don't collect any data about me. the other kind is business as usual, leaving the door open for more innovative than pervasive data collection and intrusion. and there is the third

possibility though, privacy needs as well as presenting an enormous business opportunity. there is a growing that allow individuals to collect personal data and manage it. get access to the digital footprints, to the businesses and services they choose to provide better customization. more relevance and real value for their data. with other leading industry thinkers, i've come to believe there is my money to be made in ecosystem that allows which businesses have access to a data under what terms and conditions in areas under the more diffuse and scattershot system. now, i'm going to articulate a

broad outline of the ecosystem and talk about developments in the industry. for those of you who know me, you might find it unusual that i have such a keen focus on money and business models. after all, i am known as the identity woman and am saving the world with user sends her identity. after first learning about these technologies in 2003, i've been an end-user advocates and catalysts for these technologies. and i have convened the internet identity workshop every six months for the last six years. this event has brought together developers can major web companies to businesses for their employees and a range of other interesting work. our focus is on user centric digital identity technologies, not individuals and users can be

empowered with their own identity online and have it be persistent, autonomous and under their control. many of you doubtless have recognized the allusion to the famous cartoon on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. to meet our local symbolizes three human rights which we believe are worth fighting for. the freedom to be who you want to be online, the right to anonymity, the right to curate the nation about yourself that can be found online, the ability to express verify claims about yourself through detailed information when you want to through people of organizations. today there is a personal data ecosystem in which everyone unknowingly participates. and for the most part, pays no heed to these rights. each of us misinformation about ourselves and our activities.

our intentions in various forms. this information is collected by a wide range of institutions that people interact with directly. and then, they are assembled by data brokers and subsequently sold to data users. this chain of activities happens with almost no participation or awareness on the part of the data subject, the individual. and then, this data is used and affects the individual slides. "the wall street journal" has outlined several rows. they are beginning to explore how risk can be assessed a social network data for people with unhealthy lifestyles. social networking data went by, and e-mail to build comprehensive profiles of

people. they pay for services to determine the name behind the address the "washington post" reported banks are turning into online banking experience on purchasing behavior and throughout this you can clearly see the value of all the money being today buying and telling it. the technologies focused on identity as labored since 2004 untaught balaji leg open i.d. and information card. i have come to realize that unless business is the return, over and above the cost of stocking the technology. nothing will change. being good for end-users and motivation to spur industry

transformation. the business value we are missing was the early generation of user centric technology must be built into personal data system. so here i'd like to highlight a key distinction that there is a fundamental difference between being watched and being seen. being seen as an act of mutual social recognition icu, you see me, we see each other. we are seeing. being watched his unit directional. it's done without the subject's knowledge. and beanstalk is what happens when someone watching out to be is aggregated and the object follows through time without their knowledge. the industry are stocking

subjects, that is people all over the web collecting information about banned in their duties without awareness. and "the wall street journal" series, the top 50 websites have more than 3000 cookies and other tracking tokens on their computer. money information about individuals prefer parties and they've identified over 100 middlemen in the advertising market for data. in reaction to this widespread industry practice is, many are still an advocacy groups have proposed do not track technology systems and governments both here in the u.s. and in europe are increasingly living as firmly regulating these industries. some web companies are moving to eliminate. for example, google announced it after nine months an anonymous adapter 18 to 24 months.

they concur the writing is on the wall. they see these business practices as selling massive amounts of aggregated data about people being regulated. soon they will only be allowed to have severely limited amounts of information about people for a short amount of time. and sure come in the present battle of massive personal data retention is not sustainable. not only our governments moving to regulate these activities, it is not even the best way to get useful information about people so they can get services that they want. the community i am leading his approaching empowerment by simply asking this question. what if individuals are given tools to collect and manage their own personal data, their digital footprints? and what if there were tools and services for collecting and integrating all of these streams on behalf of the individual?

call logs, location logs to my purchase history, wellness history, all the books, movies and other media. television, viewing logs and the list goes on and on and on. what if we gave people the power to see themselves and collect this information? information that no one else can quickly integrate? what if they could choose to retain all the information they wanted for as long as they wanted. on this next graph, you can see this red. it shows us what is happening today. data aggregators, brokers and users are collecting information

and along the bottom this time in the fax is imminent to that this is being pushed toward zero. the green dot our what would happen if people were given the capacity to store and manage their own data. if they could keep as much data as they wanted for as long as they wanted, digital footprints of a lifetime could be shared with the future generation. the user centric, with the individual can aggregate information about themselves were enable new classes of services that are more valuable to the individual and these would be based on access data then accessed with permission notice. the foundation of the ecosystem is data storage services are totally under the control of the individual. we can see early examples of these in the market place

already. they are not big ideas i'm talking about. paris started doing these things already. stats is a startup to support support to putting out information about different service providers together. records, energy utility records, health and fitness record, shop and, payments and transportation. they give you instructions on how to go to your mobile carrier or electric company and export statements. this often involves dozens of steps and is very labor-intensive, not easy or something everyone will do, but it's possible. grassland has personal clouds reach. you share the information about where you're linking your flickr or google, all the services you're accessing that you can't really search when you're searching your own laptop. use them to search around use of

cloud services. personal.com has raised in venture funding. it does articulate clearly how personal data under the control of the individual is very valuable. there are two open source projects in the space, the higgins project in project menu. and in the u.k., there's a company called my back, so it's not a for-profit and it not a nonprofit either. they have lunch the community pilot where they are helping constituents share information with government. [inaudible] >> it is spelled with the p. here's a pen and i will fix it. you can't do that on powerpoint

are sorry. so what these neo-data set for new opportunities, new opportunities emerge for media and advertising that individuals individuals -- there's one more company and want to talk about. kinetics actually found by my college web and internet identity workshop with. and it builds a rule set. it's a rules language that can look at your personal data out of public data and outmatch them together. so you could imagine a gps navigation system link to the first days of their plans push your worthless post your appointment calendar and i would recommend basis to stop when you're about that day to go and

get a present for someone that has a birthday next week. there is a way in which all of these together could really make people's lives easier. it allows for permission marketing where people are choosing companies and businesses from third parties they trust to help them get better services and also allows for the emergence with the vendor relationship management and individuals are specifically choosing to share future buying intent. it's like a corollary to customer relationship management. so in conclusion, we can see that this model is a middleweight in between the lead business as usual with better

and more pervasive stocking and the do not track, where individuals are put into control. basically it is a win win win for everybody. regulators when because they don't have to regulate the industry they do now. end users and because they get all of the data and value. they're not just her and all the way. we don't track come you through all the value of the data away. and in the theater building building on the new ecosystem has huge opportunity and we think even more money can be made in this way than there is today. so, i along with others confounding a collaborative consortium in this space. we have a website right now that is aggregated of leading industry thinkers, podcasts that were doing weekly. we also are building documentation, mapping out the people business companies and

standards in this emerging space in our first major project is to raise funds through a value network analysis of the current eq system around data and how the new ecosystem over. so with that, i'd invite you if you're interested to participate with us in three different events. the identity collaboration in san francisco on february 14, new digital economic incentives if of any pro-and the 12th internet identity in california. thank you very much. [applause] >> i think we have time for maybe one or two questions. does anybody want to come up? >> please identify yourself. >> tatar wolf. last week there was an announcement by the commerce department about identity and it created hubbub in the privacy community about whether or not this is just an easier way for government to track as he could

you explain more about what is happening? >> government has been marketing since they came into office on a national strategy in cyberspace. they released a drive to center and have continued to iterate. the enough last week the program office for implementing the strategy would be at the department of commerce. really it's about supporting the defense using commercially but it identities because the commercial sector is cutting people's identity and allow people to use those identities to log into government site so that it doesn't have to issue identities to millions of people like login credentials. you could use credentials to your bank to log in to the irs to check your taxes. you don't need another name. and there saw a good article i wrote on my company blog that covers this more comprehensively. >> would you be around at the coffee break?

>> i will be around. >> if anybody has any more question they can come find you. i love that i.d. collaboration they had assigned on-time day. so we're going to leave it there. kaliya hamlin, thank you so very much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> we are never doing that thing again. i should explain why that happened. we are the same is coming we were so thrilled and somehow there is a game of operator we were told we thought we couldn't have slides for some of the speakers, but actually that's not true. but the message got to kaliya and she created this art project. i think it's kind of retro. i kind of like it actually. in any case, let's move on. we're going to have a break right after our next speaker, so i want to start out with privacy

location and social networking standing right here. you've heard of foursquare and other software is to let people know what you are. we've been talking about that a lot already this morning. our next speaker is cofounder and chief scientist. they've created software that controlled the conference room. please welcome carnegie mellon professor,.turn norman today. thank you so much for coming. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. so when i was told about the no slide rule, i knew i didn't have the graphical skill that kaliya, so i thought i'd double check the c-span. the lesson number one, never take no for an answer. so what i'd like to do today is i'd like to ask the following question. i'm in technologies. i'm not a lawyer. for obviously privacy is a very broad space and i think it's

very clear the kind of issues we're looking on are going to require coming at this from a number of different goods. what can technology do in this space? are within that spirit, i'd like to actually ask with you a couple of questions revolving around whether the connections we can sell privacy and social networking. and so obviously, there are some very extreme views on this as you can tell if your view is that you can't argue with success and they're going to get it to 600 million users if they haven't already. many look at you probably know what you think about your approach to privacy. the conclusion is nobody cares about our privacy anywhere. in fact there are quotes from even mark zuckerberg.

so even mark zuckerberg has said that giving users control over their information is ultimately going to result in more sharing and is going to make people feel marquand well and therefore we care very much about privacy. and obviously, if things were that simple, then you wouldn't have seen the kinds of things that we feel blessed every day or something people were talking about six months ago. as remember you would go to google and say how to and one of the tough choices is how do i go about deleting my facebook account, which suggests a decent number of people at some point were slightly frustrated with things going on in facebook because of privacy and were considering deleting facebook accounts. as it turns out, not something completely straightforward to do. as we know also, the number of users continues to grow quite impressively. and so really, the question now

is what is going on here? e-mail, do people really care about privacy or is it the case that perhaps we've entered a new area? and so the technology is and also somewhat in academia and the two answered these questions they collect data and running experiments. so i've actually been engaged in deploying a variety of different occasions over the past eight years before foursquare came about to try to see what we could come up with some answers to these kinds of questions. a lot of the things i'll be talking about will be illustrated with results of our studies that have been conducted, looking at how people feel in different conditions when it comes to sharing the location with others. so those of you who are not familiar with location sharing, this is essentially the idea that you may want to share your

location with others. so foursquare is very popular these days that will essentially put your location in check and say i'm here at starbucks again. i've been here so many times i should become the mayor of this place and marketed discount for it. before that you had a number of other occupations that have been taking different irrigations on the same team. latitude that google would be an example you can select a few friends decide to let them see your location under conditions. and so, we have our own application dealing with data within the spaces to build your own stuff, otherwise you're basically subject to whatever policy will people would decide to have them they can very well decide overnight somehow to change these policies as part of your studies. with that would be safer to

develop our own version. i'm not here to promote that, but here are the kinds of things we've observed. what you are seeing here, which is one reason why we have what you are seeing here when it comes to sharing their location with different vendors of the carnegie mellon in pittsburgh. each square represents the user. the horizontal axis represents seven days of the week starting on sunday the vertical axis represents 24 hours of the day. red means stop shared in creaming shares. this is essentially what you're seeing. obviously the jokey or is to challenge you to come up with a good policy. and as we can see, there's quite a bit of diversity. three people are completely green and others essentially have nothing to hide. you've got the people who are

completely red, the majority of the people and this is what is interesting that the majority of the people are in between and they're actually willing and interested in disclosing under some conditions, but certainly not all the time. when you look at these charts and say how do i come up with the policy for all these people, the answers will be very challenging. so i say no, obviously facebook decides it is green and somehow we are not completely convinced this is the right way to go. another challenge the policy as we also know is when you come up with policies for people, they tend not to change those. so even though mark zuckerberg may be bragging about making the settings available to people come in the vast majority of users on this book, 80% of them just never touch the settings. so whatever facebook has decided, that's what they're

going to go ahead with. i doesn't seem to be entirely satisfactory given the variety of users that we have. if you look at the charter jet showed you. what is more interesting is that not only are people very diverse when it comes to how they feel, their preferences are very rich in terms of deciding when to go to their location. so these are the result of another study we can did to understand exactly how rich these preferences are. we looked at groups that they might want to share location with her and her friends, close friends and family, facebook friends, university committee and also advertisers are looking at models where you're going to a place they can here checking in. feel free to use my location to give me a discount or do whatever it is my information.

i just went to hear speakers pointed out. so the question now is, what kind of attributes what i have to expose to users? what kind of setting what i want to expose to users that want to do a good job at capturing condition to expose their location. when it comes to close friends as it turns out, you don't need to actually give them that many settings. people have a small group of people, maybe three, more, for five and a group of very close friends, but that's a tiny number. as soon as he tried to do sharing beyond that, it turns out that joe sharing based on the entity is is just not it could people refer to these as any application today with location sharing. and it actually allows you to only share based on a list of people who are considered okay. these other people can see your

location. maybe you can toggle them on and off, but he was going to do that in any case? what we've done is we've said what if you allow people to specify rules, where they would be able to actually constrain the conditions which make it visible to these groups, subject to a time of the day or day of the week for the location where they are. and so this graph here shows you different colors how much better you start doing when it comes to really capturing what people have to the vertical access code accuracy measures how well you are capturing people's to preferences when it comes to sharing. what you are seeing is the white list does very well with friends and family. when it comes to numbers of the university community, accuracy is 20%. so i'm going to see if i can point to this. that is your list right there.

but if you start adding more and more attributes, you're allowing people for the location where they are to determine whether or not they are comfortable in sharing their location with these different groups come you start seeing accuracy goes to. so it means of these attributes are part of what you're going to need ultimately. if you want to do a good job at capturing scenarios where people might be willing to share the locations. so one reason why applications that have a really failed is that it's not to expose that kind of function. so i've been to google a few times in conversation and explain things more they talk about what they call their bar racers. usn and they save face accusers with hundreds of fans.

it must be the same amount to get the answer is our users for latitude of people who've got five friends or more. so that is essentially what latitude has been able to do is being able to capture this part of tanks, but it's not capturing any of that. when it comes to that, there's no sharing. what people will do, they are not crazy come in the air in the same side with control and they're going to say well, i'm just going to let the small group of people and nobody else. as it turns out, social networking is not necessarily a recipe for success. why? social networking is all about sharing. if you end up with controls that are going to result in little sharing, the application has no value and therefore were going to stop using it, which is what these applications have done. so what is very interesting in fact is if you measure the amount of sharing at the settings can potentially lead to an witchy signal among these vertical these are the amount of sheer and you can get as you increase the settings that you

make available to users. so introducing quantifying conditions based on time plus the differences between week days and weekends among locations. as you can see you can enable people to specify those kinds of sophisticated preference they might have that would ultimately make them feel comfortable sharing. what am i talking about? may be something more concrete. you can actually not specify what latitude and i'm willing to share my location with colleagues, but only nine to five ennui day and only when i'm on company premises. most will have that preference, you just can't express it. end result is i'm going to be sharing my location with my colleagues unless perhaps facebook behind my back has decided to do something different. so as you may be setting the

richer and here's the kicker, there's a lot more sharing taken place. the facebook friends you can increase the amount of sharing by effect earth two. with mobile advertisers, something that the four squares of the world shouldn't care about punisher and actually increased by a factor of 2.5. so as it turns out, there are conceivable ways in which we can reconcile privacy at least on the surface and in fact social networking in different conservations. obviously i've taken a few shortcuts and essentially present tonight. these are essentially results. how would i be able to capture your preferences? things are a bit more complex. and to give more sentenced people come you somehow need to convince them to use the settings. as i pointed out earlier, most of the time, whatever that number might be these days, or a

few people actually use the settings. why? it takes time because they're not ready to change these settings or they don't understand what is going on with the settings they have aired honestly don't see how bad the settings are, there's nothing that motivates them and gives them incentive to say perhaps i need to tweet this. the question that we've been asking is in fact, how can we achieve those kinds of results that show new year that are based on looking at how people really feel. here the things we can start looking at. the first graph that shows you confusing with the reading premixed across different users is an illusion. the lynchburg and very diverse. as it turns out, if you move away from the idea you should only have a wonderful policy for all users you can look more closely to turns out you can come up with interesting default profiles. essentially what is called

privacy personnel. so the idea is perhaps i can come up with three or four personas that people can pick from. so you've got to completely open and in between perhaps i can capture one or two times and actually capture a good amount of preferences. how can it do that given the pictures they showed you earlier that seem to be so confusing? this turns out even though each user looks different from the other colony of luck along the time dimension, and has a lot to do with the fact that i was showing the absolute times. if you look at people more closely, we all have mornings typically, we'll have some called lunchtime, and an afternoon come evening, weekends. some people have weekends that happened to be sunday and monday. some people are sort of early risers and others don't get up out of bed before noon, like the students i've got a carnegie mellon. and so, if you want to start increasing the chance that you can actually identify these kinds of people first of all you've got to say it's find a

way for these details in a more economical manner. what i mean by that? projecting things than a morning tea or, perhaps the morning for you is very different than whatever someone else. let's look at things like where your home is where workers even though these are different locations. those things have very much the same meaning for different people and chances are these things have different kinds of preferences. in fact, here's something to put that specifically. we've looked at the measure that we call location attribute. entropy is a term that comes from basically referring to how confused the entire. you can define the notion and by looking at the diversity of people who come in the location. for example, this place has a height attribute with a good number of people in this room

here. my home on the other hand has lower ashby. it's obviously my family, my wife, my children and that's pretty much a. but still one question is how does it feel about sharing location with different people. few things are highly correlated. the places with the height attribute tend to be places where people actually advertise foursquare like i'm at starbucks. i'm not sure people are attempting to become mayor of their own plays in to receive it either. but those kinds of observations can actually lead to the definition of interesting personas, privacy personas which you can then access to people by asking him a small number of

questions. how it can converge towards preferences that capture what i would like to do when it comes to sharon to location. this is nice, but it's not the whole story. how do you get people to engage with these policies. they decide for themselves. auditing is something we've known for many years. i allow people to see who's been looking for them. let them then decide whether or not they are happy. and so they might decide this guy looks like he is stalking me. maybe i better change my rule for this person and take them out of this group. this other person has been looking for me and that was actually find. in fact, i wish we'd had met. i'm going to open up that preference. so we've been playing a lot with these kinds of auditing interfaces, by allowing two people to see who's been looking for them knowing people to

provide feedback. the taken it one step further and i'll say a few words about that before another time. it actually allows people to ask questions like why is it that so-and-so was able to see my location? i thought we were doing what i wanted. it makes a difference. you look at the result of princeton six is an auditing function with these applications like the interface i show you should allow them. there's an interesting result. this is not true for everyone. an average but you see is people tend to open up and they open up selectively. they start with rules similar to what you might find that might allow a small number of people when other people are looking for them and they are quite

reasonable. they are going to place rules that show these are happening. it actually has more value again if i actually expose this additional level of expressing and give people more insight into what's going on. a lot of people have no idea how these applications are using. five years ago no one was using application sharing. honeysuckles all of a sudden we get to know how we feel us make allocation available to others. we have no clue. as someone raised reason i people are extremely conservative for reprinting two years later. i wish i had to post a and face the unit can't get a job anywhere. so the next level here is actually attempts to do that when netflix does in that it collects feedback. it tells me the kind of things are comfortable with and let me see if i can actually learn a lot of research going on developing what we call user oriented machine learning.

the user remains in control. you want learning to take over your preferences. who knows what it's going to come up with. it might decide the wrong thing and then something really bad happens. we've been looking at how you can develop what it can learn, the work also with you so that ultimately yours remain in charge so you're responsible for approving change. for the user still feels in control and with these techniques have done. these are essentially the kinds of things you can be looking at. i could continue talking for a long time, but the point i'm trying to make your it's a social network and privacy necessarily are these two things reconcilable? i don't think so. but they are obviously different technologies that are going to

be needed. i'm not suggesting in any way we have the ultimate answers here. these are examples of things have been able to deploy and certainly have been shown to make a difference. what are we talking about? where we are talking about is providing people with a better set to pick from and help in understanding, which facebook does, leaving them to us questions from a providing them with suggestions and engaging them. we've got to essentially engage at the user can i get the user to better understand what's going on and create their preferences. if you did that come in and of sharing, but sharing the user feels comfortable. facebook has users is not an accident. it's not the case and nobody understands anything about private key. they get a sense that by the way, if you like the idea of doing some sharing. this is a fact. so among some privacy advocates,

sometimes you're the resolution would be to close something is up. let's not go there. you're not going to get any policymaker to agree to and interaction. need to manitoba technologies to use these tools in a manner that's going to be more in line with their expectations, more in line with what they are comfortable doing. a couple of things we've been playing the prior i have been assuming so far that if you give users tools that enable them to specify exactly what they welcomed their going to be happy. i'm facebook is more than one espino and we've come to regret it. and i've always been very happy at a time. and they might very well understood roughly what you're doing. the product is two years later you come to regret what you've done. the question is could we somehow help users and has users. we do what to force users to not

post a picture ever. people should have the choice. one of the emerging confidence in this space is the concept of sub pattern rights or images. so one idea is to see whether we could potentially use information from other users. in fact, people have been using locations and the preferences they've ended up with. could they actually used his preferences to come up with meaningful suggestions for new users so they don't make the same mistakes other people is maybe for the converged policies they felt comfortable with. these are the kinds of things were playing with these days in the lab and beyond now are also doing things such as his privacy really the ultimate or is there something more sophisticated going on. they are going back to the location. it is not the case with some of

those where you come either you describe your latitude and longitude are saying according to tell you. they are much richer than not. people say i'm out of town. while that's good. it doesn't say where you are. busy, working, i'm shopping. as it turns out, we've been able to show a dichotomy of expression people used to refer to their locations where you can predict based on the number of fact there's what is their social relationship, whether you are close to one another or not. what kind of turn is going to be to turn the oven will ultimately want to choose to describe in their location. if you can predict outcome he might be able to move away from these black-and-white sort of formats, were either you disclose or don't disclose or a more sophisticated way of sharing information. this is roughly where i'm going to conclude. my last slide, i hope i'm not overtime, but i don't have a watch, so that it makes use.

i think hopefully today i've convinced you that beyond just policymaking, which is an important part of the equation, technology can help shape the landscape and change what you've got available. i'd like to emphasize you talk about location. it is much more complex than that. facebook allows you to share much more information. your cell phone and all the apps you can download will allow people to access a variety of architectural attributes. so the question is, are we going to sort of be able to live up to the challenges of all these contextual attributes would present us with? ultimately i believe in this is a long-term vision, this is not the solution, but my belief is that elegy we are developing has been commercializing or more recently with her startup panel, these technologies can eventually evolve into some kind of speech and that will essentially have a download. we are talking about policy and

the website. we are talking about android and what it discloses the information. who is ever going to be able to evaluate with whatever interface to develop? you're going to need some level of automation, but the automation will never be complete because the are hard to understand and you can never seem somehow you'll be able to pay someone. you need functionality. many of these decisions many of these decisions many of these decisions what are the right questions. there's no other way. you look around and everything is collecting information about you. that's probably the only way forward. a night to acknowledge the sponsors at carnegie mellon who will be funding this work do we

believe obviously there is support for innovation and maybe it's time to commercialize on the ideas and what i talked about today. >> thank you so much nor man. dr. norman sadeh. [applause] we do have time for questions. does anybody have any questions? will you be around for the coffee break as well? >> we have a very shy audience today. please speak into the microphone and identify yourself. ..