i do mean that decided not the object. so one in the same thing in to produce wealth overtime but you try to address our a tactical problem in tel machines are better than humans. >> machines don't exist is only people pretending of the people don't exist. you we're doing great but you made a huge logical heir but then fell off a cliff. [laughter] in the question is that. there is a whole train of thought that does not think the way you think. >> of course, i know that.

people are a little crazy in very emotional so open source i was in the room with open source was born and i remember richard for being so upset about the software being held that because a little company that they gravitated i understand the motion. and i understand it is nice to think about of pristine digital immortality by a understand those emotions. we cannot rest on our passions and fears that is what it technical culture is

succumbing to. with open source there is the interesting alternative. there are two huge domains where you have these ridiculous license it is just a ridiculous regime then you have the open source where you pretend people go to assist with a monster creature the pretend is the brain on lowering every ready except who runs the biggest computer. and that has not then given a fair chance. in tons of people contribute but if you look back up my next back in the sir, a people contributed? a that was aicher pavement's

going all that is middle-class distribution that is the the tip is forming around the machines so they don't have to pay for the software. to put the information out there is a failed idealism. in to get money from the search code it has to show bit torrent that just makes new buzz copies to avoid paying for them. and the greatest rewards are for the worst piece of machinery that is precisely what we're doing.

the. >> i have come to a lot of the same conclusions myself but fair disclosure i work for the evil empire. >> which one? i do microsoft research and a totally confused as may. [laughter] i am going to identity crisis. >> just the community of evil empire achieved out the rhythm of officer for the of might add companies that is why i am worried about it but what intrigues me most is ultimately whatever the problem is is the question traverses many there is the truth out networks than the version that the people find it short-term profitable and the problem is promulgating

the truth is not that easy. said to have to pay to broadcast a and in broadcasting it so somebody needs to be profiting and every single point it is this kind of message was in support he would fill a stadium. of so broadly speaking, there is a huge bias in the information business to getting the word out in favor of power that gets the message you try to spread. how can you overcome that? >> for what it is worth i think i am all selling eric schmidt. [laughter]

and the answers of what to do instead is always the hard part. i don't want to reach but the tight we have to fix this is before automation gets really good before all the cars and drive themselves and everything is 3d printed did you see massive unemployment. not next week but we have a little bit of time. i get a fairly specific in the book but leave the big questions open. i am getting of a wonderful reception i talked to my facebook friends i am not on facebook but the people who run them that are are my friends. [laughter] i am going to googleplex i do not have faced with friends in the vernacular sense. people think that you have to keep beating the monster so i am not on facebook for twitter and i don't do frequent-flier i don't sign

up and i seemed to be doing okay and everything is fine. so it may not be important but i am finding a lot of good will and good reception and to buy him pretty happy how it is going. the book as on the banal for one week in the states but i am happy. >> so the mass communications system you make personal contact to get personal response? >> i knew them from when they were zygotes. [laughter] >> i hope it works. >> this is in a different direction but as far as the future of technology do you see is becoming more dependent as we go forward? is there some point? >> technology does not exist. if you givme computer

computer, then give me a martian that knows nothing about human culture. they look at the computer and they cannot tell if it is a law of the lamp it just radiates heat without culture, technology does not exist you have to know how use and what it means it is not a freestanding think so that we hear dependent on technology we pretend we don't matter and it says the same thing. it is the trick of thought or stage magic. >> i don't get that. >>. [laughter] the symbol of the translator? did that help? >> it has been a 20 year gap since agassi new era was much younger. >> was much longer than that. on may 40th birthday of

giving a lecture at stanford and there was a stanford freshman sitting there in the first-run and he looked at me and he said you are still alive? and that was 13 years ago. >> so that i have the one question knu speak to said to a french human qualities? hubris and humidity of the role how we can bridge is a pate to create the future? >> hubris is interesting because they feel that's with silicon valley tries to be here again we can't quite pull it off because we are

nerds. but when we don't think we are being here again is when we are. that is the funniest saying. when you hang out with wall street people who did you see what americans really looks like. it is different. but there was the thing of political action committee the silicon valley companies tried to start. it doesn't know how to be a bully. it doesn't make sense. there is a sweetness to our culture but humility is not just a lack go bullying but it requires a hard work to see clearly and i don't know how good i have gotten but at least i try. i don't know. but it is an ongoing process

>> via parent of three kids. are you? >> ibm. >> my question is my kids are geeky and trying to figure out what is going on in the world and to later thoughts or advice? i tried to teach them to be good blood being people do have a advice on what they are studying besides being good people what should they be doing? >> and i don't know. my qualifications as a parent will become known to me when my daughter is in adults which will not be for a while. i of a little worried about how structured our kids' lives are going from pay-to-play and everything is planned. the structure of facebook is the extension of the fate because -- of the play date

because in the '90s when i went talk to graduates they would say i made my website but now nobody does the go to their pre-structured thing where they follow a group that is laid out for them it is less work but it goes back to the jeffersonian question that everybody goes into zepa restructured kits and i am a little worried i love how we can teach science to make your own robot or your own or goodness of the but the problem is it is a kit to quality and you don't hit raw reality or the place directly because it is so organized asia and structured. i think that is not good for being a scientist and i am totay part of the problem say gn

history. it will not happen but i am denying her something. , i don't know how to resolve that. there really bothers me. one of the rings of hell is filled with elementary school math teachers. [laughter] i cannot believe how incredibly crappy the curriculum is. when my daughter was in kindergarten i picture up and all the little girls are arguing about stupid social craft it is true. so and so likes so and so. volume sure i just betrayed something but this time they were arguing whether in affinity was the number or a weird idea. they were really thinking about making excellent arguments. i said only god they are arguing if infinity is a

number we have to do something about this. and she said no we do edition it blows my mind said natural curiosity is not something we seize upon a and i don't know what to do about it. with a known child left behind is this where somebody concentrates influence through big computer. there you see a rise where the test does not measure anything important but cheating and the information is suspect what you see in the dating and the finance sites where information is not reliable loaf if -- reliable. it really bugs me. >> hot and i ended up i know

it has been 25 years since we did the virtual reality with the glasses and the gloves. >> is he here? he was the ibm research fellow now i was surprised to see it at the device with the equipment they have the $0.25 chip in all of our smart phones it is it a resurgence is virtual reality coming back? >> i have been around this but every three years there is a wave. i hope it does great. i think it is cool. and brings back memories of when i was a kid and i hope they do wonderfully seven

kugel class a bunch of my buddies work on it. a physical device but the problem is not the glass but the business plan that makes a creepy. somebody asked for, i am absolutely convinced the in all interest ultimately we're undermining our own source of wealth. it is a short-term gain vs. long-term gain so right now with kodak employed 140,000 people with good middle-class jobs and instagram had 13 people worth $1 billion. i don't mind a success behalf friends who are successful and i applaud that but we should create our success to growing the

economy and not shrinking and now reshape the economy that will come and buy it just as it always does to use a computer for a perfect scheme so i am convinced facebook can cripple and apple will do better because they're part of a growing economy instead of put down into a perfect scheme i am on the side of silicon valley because any scheme, i applaud success. i want to see more of that. thank you for coming. [applause]

>> making a transition from journalism to book says exhilarating, overwhelming and trading. i made the choice because the long wanted to work on a book with the freedom it allows you to dive into a topic to lose yourself a and go off on a tangent to have time to explore it fully.

>> behalf to be eric schmidt and jerry cohen to be drawing a crowd like this. eric schmidt is a software engineer by a bringing in chief technology officer and cr -- ceo of novell that those sough who love the old and new digital age come off he has a nice distinction in to work that for the zero labs and xerox are choir back in the old days when corporations had wonderful who retrieved space is to help prevent some of the

things of the digital age from the transistor to the interface then became the ceo of google's nonexecutive chairman and a longtime friend of the aspen institute. thank you for being here. jared growing up was bitten by the travel bug when he was a student and a graduate student and went wandering around starting in iran and god knows how you got to visa. palestinian refugee camps in the book children of the jihad to put him at the intersection of u.s. culture and geopolitics is secretaries of state and on the policy thinning appointed by a condoleezza rice and then one of the few people reappointed by

secretary hillary clinton. he helped to found go gladius there really applies technology and other things to geopolitical issues and recently announced that human trafficking database around the world that google's gave the clans and there is a technology how to connect the mall and let me start with derek in baghdad? how did that happen? >> let me start by saying the aspen institute has been a center of ideas that affect it technology center for release two decades and i have the privilege to work with walter and charlie and the good society program now many others so it is great to be here. we but because we decided to

see what it with a look-alike because fighting had ended what is it take to rebuild a society? hi ned jarrett on the trip and all i heard is his voice. [laughter] >> what redoing in baghdad? >> back to 2009 we began reaching out to ceos of silicon valley to have a conversation how technology was transforming places. but places where the extraordinary impact of technology was on the last in syria was on the list.

he was the very first for chin when hendrix ceo from a technology company to land in baghdad. it was a very big deal for us because we try to connect the world of expertise around technologies around geopolitics. >> in our initial conversation call the economies than $1 trillion in baghdad when we invade countries rebuild cities. where does the money go? echoes there. and we did not rebuild the the communication network boss of making cell phones illegals of my time got there the networks did not work, not cross connected thinking they're being used for a edie's but in hindsight that was the most important thing to do from a conflict situation to rebuild communications to get the good guys in power

faster in that was our conclusion. at the time our first observation distraite ford way to do to put a camera on them to see where the cameras are going so the lack of ideas which is well meaning to provoke this collaboration. >> to what extent do you think technology would undermine the regime? >> we like to think about dictators in the future to have paid to love the. take every and 72 million people and connected to the internet when they are connected with the g mail account for social networking account they have the voice-over it

services, the population of iran could be 72 million people within the virtual world they look like half a billion people this gives a serious challenge to the regime in tehran how they account 500 million voices online coming from the same 72 million people? >> also the possibility of the over reaction. three people can sound like 10,000 people and that is a threat to use the dictators. so the problem is you have these three people and it now all of a sudden you have a real problem because they have friends there you have created a resistance movement that did not exist before. >> they can also use the new ways and online activity to hide. saw all the voices can

benefit the movement that tried touse day outside. >> how important are the digital networking technologies? >> we argue in the book in the future the revolution of the easier to start the harder to finish that technology is very useful for forming weak ties online it is very good for organizing around the lowest common denominator to get the dictator out of power but when they can't do is create leaders overnight or create institutions that are not there in the challenge is technology increases expectation. they expected to finish as quickly as it started the we argue will happen is all these heroes and celebrities from the era of spring companies but what will happen is they will back fill the celebrity with real leadership skills and a number of years they will

run for president or parliament and the population will go back to figure out which one was better. >> i am not sure you want to be the first leader because with everybody gets connected the expectations are rising so here you are the rabil now everyone is interconnected in a expect modern government they were still trying to figure out who works for you and who is not corrupt. >> i just read a book that was similar to yours called bunker hill and the history of 1775 and how the american revolution started. i was struck by the fact the correspondence was like facebook paul revere was like twitter with 100 characters leftover.

[laughter] but even the letters are like the wikileaks, but what struck me is the revolution started by people who had the social networks but it was taken over very quickly of militias that were out of control the oxygen in concord is not what they expected in those who put their bodies on the line takeover revolutions that are started by social that works. is that true? >> we throw around the term cyberdissidents and apply it to anybody who tweets. to be the term still applies somebody who will have some risk to the physical world and everybody in cyberspace to opposes the regime does a disservice to the real opposition groups. we were in libya one year

ago and our observation is where is the police? where is the army it is being run in one catalytic moment who can turn this upside-down. . . it's so brutally repressed.

remember that. people are unwilling to have their children be killed by a mill willsha. and the current environmental smiew. a deeper threat of the legacy of the government than we americans like to think. people are willing to put up with the corruption and craziness and lack of democracy. they are willing to take picture of the environment at tremendous personal risk against the secret police. the internet has perfect memory. they are territorial-type terrify -- for. they have one child. their child is everything. >> tell me about google's dealings with china. you felt you couldn't do everything you needed to do. >> well, china is the only current country in the book we argue that china will actually get in to the business of exchanging censorship tools for minerals they are trading everything else. the only current country that

does activer is or censorship. you get a phone call and you have to take it down in a few minutes. it has to do with criticism of the senior leadership. if you get the phone call you have to take it down. it became so obsessive. we thought it was a modest transition within the government. no. they are terrified of the series of revolt and i suspect truth about what is going on became 0 prezzive for that reason and because we were attacked militarily by their cyber police, and also because of the tracking they do of their disdense across the world for those three reasons google moved to hong kong. my say to the chinese -- we like the hong kong system better. [laughter] >> do you think the china system is eventually doomed? >> a lot of people debate it all the time especially beijing.

depending on which group you talk to you get different answers. a reasonable assumption is that you've got address the things that are effecting the lives of middle class people. so the train, in the book we talk about the train accident where train accident people killed a cover-up of the government, the government of course said it didn't happen. it was minor. and the twitter equivalent lent, the outrage happening. the guy running the train system is highly corrupt and under a death sentence. they are willing to act based on that. if they are able to correctly handle those sorts of things, can they use a modified version of the dictator handbook which allows a certain amount of freedom. they can survive. if they can't for whatever sort of reason, they are going to be in big trouble. >> china has another problem too. we tried to talk to about it

with people. but for whatever they tried to avoid it. there is roughly 600 million people connected right now. the 600 million people connected today largely living in the major city. 700 million new people will connect in china likely in the next decade. ethnically and religiously diverse. they have more grievance than anybody else in the population. nobody knows what happens when the people come online. when people talk about dictatorship and the ability to manage the cat and mouse game they point to places like syria and china. it's not fully connected yet. in reality we don't know how they'll handle it. >> the important thing and one of the great thing of the book what happens when the next 5 billion join us. thirty countries plus or minus

one over the last couple of years are just like us. they have the same wants and needs. they are trapped in bad systems. when they get connected they'll behave like we would had we just gotten connected. they're going to put enormous pressure on the government. the government who are often not legitimate in poor they don't -- they are not democracy, at lot of corruption or favoritism. the government is going to react back as the citizen get empowered. it will become one of the major stories of the next five years. in the book we conclude that the empowerment, this is -- what is? right the lack of empowerment. particularly global device. it's a one-way street. we're not going disempower them. we have to get used to. government will adapt, citizens will adapt. we'll have a bigger market, the world becomes safer as a result and deal with the consequences

of it. >> when i was in china about ten years ago, i was at the western province you are talking about. and and separated from the western times. and as small coffee shop down the street people had a computer in there. so i type in time.com. it was blocked. i typed cnn n it was blocked. one elbows me and said, cnn n pops up. what do you do? we go through a privacy service of hong kong that the sensor are clueless about. do you think that china can continue to stay a step ahead of those who know how to evade sensors? >> they'll definitely be a cat and mouse game that will continue. i think one thing that -- in the future will not be able to continue is news blackouts. it won't work with the microblogs and people with camera phone. by the way, even if you shut down the internet and mobile unless you take everybody's

phone once you turn it back on. you have to for the economy. you can't prevent those things from eventually seeing the light of day. they will have to exist in a new reality where there is no news blackout. >> the technology used here is called ritual private networking. and they use a form of encription to keep the data secret from the fire wall that try to block you. there's new technology invented in china that looks for it as part of the stream and blocks them on existence. in the book we speculate as long as the number of such streams is small, the government can actually block it because you can find the end. it's like if you have a million people and there's a thousand behaving differently than the other. right. you can figure out who they are. as the technology spreads it gets much harder. at the moment people in china say that the government has gotten pretty good at wack mole mining these things. wack, wack, wack, the citizens

have gotten pretty good at witching mole, whatever metaphor you wish. >> do you think google's policy and philosophy to be on the side of the mole's? [laughter] >> well, clearly it's our policy to fight censorship, and we -- when we are willing to take significant business hits, revenue hits and so forth to do. we are celebrated everywhere except the country we're busy taking hit in. i would say we are. and the core value of google is the power of information. and one of the sort of harshest lesson for me in the last twelve years i've been at google. not everyone agrees that all the world's information is useful. in any basic way. information is incredibly frightening to establish constitutions of government and business which don't particularly want to be

receptive to change have the own level of dialogue or corruption or power. >> do you think there is some information that might not be useful or ideas not useful including holocaust denial in europe? >> well, google -- we're not talking about personal information. we're not talking about privacy. we are talking about -- [inaudible] >> think of it as broadly defined political seeing. including fact base. we would argue it's pretty good that everybody gets a chance to see it. the overall value is more information solved in the problem. >> privacy versus security. how is it going to be balanced in the virtual world? >> you have a nice way of describing it. >> when we set tout write the book, we wanted to look at the issue of privacy and security. not just in the context of the 2 billion people who are already connected.

look tat in the context of the next 5 billion people who will be joining us online. when you go to places like tunisia, afghanistan, and pakistan people don't see -- seem to have a distinct privacy of understanding. we returned with a profound sense of a desire to link these two together, and we view it as the ultimate mate shared responsibility. companies have a role to put tools in the public domain and make them readily available and individuals for safe guard their own privacy and security. government have a role. i think the most important conclusion we came to is the role parents have. we talk to parents everywhere, saudi arabia, all these different places. and our view is no matter what society you go, kids are coming online. faster and younger than any other time in history. and they are coming online so fast what they're doing and saying says how mature they

are. parent needs talk to their kids about the pornts of online privacy and security years before sex and whatever strange laws in whatever country. >> you know, we talk in the book in some length about the question is there a delete button the internet. some conclude there's not. it sets up some serious problem. a classic example, i think the way i would describe it, these examples swrielt -- violate the american sense of fairness. a high schooler commits a minor crime in america, goes to juvenile court, if they have their sentence, they serve, they become a adults, and these are behavior well, they can petition the court and say i would like to have my conviction expunged. assuming the court agrees they

can truthfully say have you ever convicted of a crime. they can say no. the employer, of course, does an internet search and immediately sees that the person is a lier. it violates our sense of justice. we have given up the principle of juvenile sort of forgiveness. there are many recent examples in the press where people initially charged and all over the paper; right. but in fact charged falsely. even the boston bombings. there were a series of people, -- if you will, charged in the press because of a quick reaction who have a great deal of trouble getting the reputation back. it's not a new problem. richard joule, right. in the atlanta bombing. we were talking about this. so in this system, how does fairness work in a world where the internet behaves like in. >> in your book you talk about the internet doesn't have a delete button quite a bit.

it's interesting. it made me think it's not too much that the internet doesn't have a delete button. it's search engines don't. if you are buried in the -- age 17 having done something. that's irrelevant unless a google search will find it. is it possible to for google to have a way to say we will at least lower certain type of searches? >> it's absolutely technical possible do that. let describe -- of course we debated that early in the year of going. how would you then side who has legislate mitt say on such a request? to a use current example there are movements in europe to be forgotten; right. the right to be forten. sounds like a good yes -- idea for me. including those who want to be forgotten for a good reason like they are criminals. who gets to decide.

google ultimately decided we could not systemically and anesthesiology -- decide do them. a good person would make a legitimate request on judgment and request. a bad person could easily mask themselves as good person and make what would clearly be an equivalent request which should be in place. >> can be court order way of doing that? >> inneed europe there's an attempt to write legislation to do that. it's been impossible to define the criteria. now it's important to say that google is in fact subject to the law of the country we operate in. and so if there were in the united states such a law which i presume britney spears will be the first yearser -- user of. somehow the law would have to be implied uniformly. there would be a legal -- >> and the -- fee is a, is a secret court.

i can't imagine you would have a secret court of this. >> it would be yearsless. >> you are trying to take something done that is already known. we are describing china at this point. it's highly unlikely the chinese is going acontinue the chinese evil pattern here. >> when we talk about privacy, i think sometimes that word is infused with anonymity. meaning we lost privacy i'm not sure everybody deserve to be anonymous in everything they do. if i went to a local drugstore and bought a pack of cigarettes. you couldn't be anonymous in a small town. do you think the internet would be better off if there were less anonymity. our view, by the way, on the same theme. we were talking about human judgment in this. there's a lot of wonderful things about us being connected and lot of people talk about privacy and security. it's an important conversation to have. more connectivity doesn't also

ab -- in the present and future. i think that's the important piece of it. also, the theme of technology that empowers people for good the bias empowerment. and the whole question of, you know, whether people can be hidden or not when you can look at in it the con technical of privacy and security and every day law-abiding users. you look in the context of terrorists, violent extremist. i think people in the context of boston were pleased to see there was no delete button. it allowed an entire population to connectively press rewiebled. >> you asked about the anonymity question. in anonymity for human beings is a relatively new concept. if you go back and you are quite the historian. >> let me go back to my childhood. >> yes. >> you are not that old. hundreds years ago, people live

in small villages. [laughter] people lived in small villages except in a new cases. everyone knew the criminal was. everybody knew the good behavior and the bad behavior. society policed itself that way. the development of modern anonymity has a number of very important benefits in particular it allows americans to resist overreach of the u.s. government. that's why anonymity is important. but it also can serve as a harbor for bad things. ultimately a couple of things, first, google will allow for an an anonymity. even if a majority of people going identify them. it will be their choice. it will be important to preserve anonymity. it's very important. it's important that the legitimate police actions be able to pierce those and appropriate and legal situations where it is a public safety

issue. so, for example, there are court orders that are possible in america, which is well established now. when you have somebody hiding behind a wall of anonymity and doing things which are clearly a crime. it seems reasonable. >> at the seminar, plato as a great -- if you put the ring on you are invisible. would you be moral or never steal anything. are you invisible and never seen to do it. plato bag pessimist in that part said it would be bad to have the total anonymity. do you think there should be a part of the internet where people like myself would feel safer that would identify identity. it's likely one will merge as a normal course of business. the reason is let the sense of argument that this represents

the entire internet and all of the humans. a few of the people in the room would not be quite the same as everybody else. they would a lot of free time. and they would want to spend al of their time harassing, send you spam mail, taking over your lives. distracting if you had nothing else to do. the rest of you are trying to do your world. there are two solutions. everyone talks to everyone else and figure out who the crazy person is who is not working. it's reasonable in a group of this size. but certainly not reasonable for the internet. the way google views it is a ranking problem. it's relatively easy to deteblght a person and relatively push them down. you get verified identity by saying they are another ranking signal for equality. right. you'll see this today if you look in facebook and twitter and amazon and google+. you have verified identity as well as anonymous identity.

the verified are people not crazy and not spamming you and say things in full paragraph. >> should there be a world in which you could exist an internet in everybody sends you something say i lost my wall wallet in nigeria, please send me money. >> you were a victim too! length of time when you think of closed internet you think of the cuban and the north korea with the intranet. one of the things we talk about in the book -- i think we taunt in the context of saudi arabia. you can imagine parks that are essentially connectivity safe zones. it's illegal to take pictures of anything. places where individuals can con grate and have lunch and interact, you know, and essentially be off the grid of being photographed. being documented. obviously not in back alleys.

we talk about even doing something like this would be extraordinary difficult. there are so many people having convictivity these things become difficult to endorse. >> society will develop new social etiquette. maybe people will decide to turn off the devices during dinner or decide a signal is that you are bored with the dinner conversation. [laughter] a simple and mild example at google, over the years, was that i tried to enforce something which we called 60 minutes. and that for one 60-minute period per week you had to turn off the computer and meet and look at each other and run the company. of course, people would their mobile devices underneath the table typing away. we would try to police that with a fine. we basically gave up. [laughter] today when you go to a meeting at google. a majority of people are meeting but also typing away on the computers. that's a social acceptable

behavior when other people visit us say they are so rude. our society inside google evolved. >> i'll tell you, i've been at google for two and a half years. i try it outside google and people get offended. i tell them this is how we do it at work and they are still offended. [laughter] >> tell me about google's labs and how you think through the -- you talk about a park with people can't take picture. if we have a world people are wearing google glass and how will it change the world? >> you can do it already with a camera and microphone that is hidden on the body or outside of your body such as we are wearing right now. i think we would answer by saying this technology is incredibly powerful and incredibly interesting. we have been distributing it in the last week or two to people. but we are also being extremely careful about it.

we have registered developmenters. the products are going to developers. we take a look at. applications they built precisely these concern and others. >> give me an example. >> we're going wait and see what comes back in term of applications. you can imagine phenomenal app weightses and application not such a good idea. >> give me an example of a app not a good idea >> it's issues around privacy. and, you know, i argue a new etiquette will merge as i use before about how one deals with the new technology. but it's important not to prematurity judge the technology. if you think about cars, cars are a terrible idea they can cause accidents and kill people. [inaudible] >> we invented driverless cars first before driver cars a 100 years ago. death rates would be lower. there's an instincts to be concerned about new technology

rather than allow to come out in a innovative way and understand what it's good for. having used it, it's phenomenal stuff. very powerful. >> why? >> you talk to it. it talk back. you see it, it interacts in some new ways. it's a new experience. and really exciting. >> it will, in some way, change all the public spaces. >> depending on the social etiquette, how it's priced. >> you already see it, which is, you know, tweet on airplane and play imams on airplane. if you do something socially unacceptable, boom. it's all over the place right away. >> it will improve people. >> i'm on the -- >> you 0 would be opposed to more anonymity. you want less? >> i think plato and i would say

that less anonymity make you better behaved. am i wrong? >> we're going let it be your position. [laughter] >> you ask about youth cases. take place where saudi arabia you have the police who are running around trying to prevent women from basically doing anything. can you imagine a situation where maybe it's, you know, not glasses. maybe it's a wearable watch or something elsewhere in saudi arabia women develop an antiapp. that allows them to track them. when they are near able they are able to send a pulse to each other. >> it's easy to tell who they are. they wear a strange outfit. >> how close are we to facial recognition technology? so if i had google glass i wouldn't look and say that's dave jackson, dave jackson used to be, you know, "time" magazine. and i would know everything. why don't we have facial regular

in -- regular in addition yet -- recognition yet? >> is a reason the powerful -- we're working on it. [laughter] we have been doing it for decades, walter. it's computed computer science. the human brain is the most extraordinary thing ever invented. we didn't invent it. thank goodness. >> it s it harder to do in silicon than -- [inaudible] >> it's extraordinarily difficult. and the connectivity and par allowism of the human brain. reprobing the structure of the brain and how processes really work. and there's a lot of progress, by the way, this n this area. it will be awhile before we know. in the book we talk about facial recognition. we roughly present the following argument. if there are a fair number of front on pictures you; right. you are facing look at the camera. the technology, which uses a essentially a set of feature in a mathematical computation is

pretty accurate. the problem, of course, in general, policework is a classic example. you don't tend to get the perfect mug shot of the people you are looking for. you get side shots and so forth. the technology today is less accurate. there are people working on various algorithm that take aside photograph and flip it and looks like that and do the feature vector. that technology is at the experimental level. so it is true, one example if you take the best known you take a stadium, in a very high-def camera and everything looking straight at the camera. you can actually begin to identify a million people in the stadium. when you reproduce it in a real stadium. people aren't looking straight at the camera. it doesn't work as well. >> what about voice recognition? >> it's much better now. again, the technology is just moved forward to the point where it used to be you had to train to a specific voice, now with the new algorithm.

>> what will it mean for the world where i can walk to my office and say give me jered ice bio as opposed to type it in. will there be a new interface? >> the numbers are somewhere between 20 and 30% are now voice acted on mobile phone. the convenience in google voice, i can be boisterous, by far the best technology in the area. when you talk about in level of accuracy. it really work. i encourage you to try it on your an droids -- android phones. [laughter] >> what sort of quirky things or nuggets in the book -- [inaudible] >> there's a lot. and we keep coming up with more every day which perhaps will form some cienld of strange epilogue. one of the things is people being able to -- let's say you are walking down the street and you don't feel well. you can swallow a pill and wi-f whats going on to the phone

and analyzes it and makeses a prediction. sees what doctors are in the area that have appointment available. it's not a replacement for a diagnoses. sin we self-diagnose anyway before we go to the doctor it will expedite the process. >> why did you go to north korea, what did you find there? >> you have no shortage of states and diplomats trying to articulate an alternative political task to north korean resheej can go down. we wanted to make the argument that they cannot continue to survive even in their current state if they don't open up a little bit. because you can't grow your economy in this world if you don't at least allow for some degree of access. north korea is a bizarre place i can probably illustrate with one

question here which is by show of hands how many have been to a broadway play or seen "truman show." you know what north korea is like. it's a basically a combination of those two thing. what we learned when we were there is they have wi-fi access. they just don't share it with the population. the phones, there is a million of them. they are 3g capable. the data is not turned on. they have 3-d television, they have unfiltered internet connection. sort of the unclassic case of the new type of corruption. the leadership has the best technology and hog it for themselves with the expense of the rest of the population. >> the internet could easily reach the elite of north korea it if the government would allow it. it's possible for them to not allow the government and shut it off. we talk about egypt did it for now and a half days which may have resulted resulted resulted in outcome. in north korea we believe that a tremendous improvement in the sort of safety of the world would be to allow information to

flow to the last closed society on earth. it's remarkable to think about a society with no personal music, no personal sources of information, new unfiltered book. two television channels which play the dear leader's speech over and over again. imagine, you know, such a closed society just a few ideas getting in there would significantly improve in our view the safety of the world. >> and if they opened up the internet one day, how many -- how long would regime last? >> of course, no one knows. the korean culture is different from other asian cultures. it's hierarchical and patriot call. and the gentleman who founded killed off the leader.