spying empire by right now the internet has multiplied to support things like bit torrent that make you plus copies of files to avoid paying for them and that this is in looking at the carbon footprint and the greatest rewards are for the worst cody and the worst use of machines. that is precisely what we're doing into the current regime. . .

>> 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

convsation 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 il 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 quick that f

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 ways.

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 abou

[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-fi what is 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. it's perfectly possible that the north korea does not become a democracy on day one. it's arrogant of americans to thinksha somehow democracy occurs in one day. it took a long day. and america was formed in unique way. everybody of a you are refugee from other places except for the

indians. it's possible you could see a transition not unlike what south korea went through. south korea was poor, relatively run by a strong man. relatively unfree and over some number of decades became more freer. >> does technology eventually make democracy inevitable. >> one of the observations that we kim away with. we were there a month ago. less than 1% of the population has access to the internet. access to the internet. everybody heard of it. they understood the internet as a set of values. as a concept and idea even before they experienced it as a user or as a tool. their understanding of the

internet was not based on a chinese -- internet. it was not based on a autocrat version of the internet. they understand it in term of the western value of free flow of information and civil liberty. what means you have 57% of the world's population living under an -- what happens when regime try to create an awe karattic internet that doesn't respond with the democratic understanding what it should be. what does look like? we don't know the answer yet. >> finish on burma. so this will be a wonderful experiment for all of us to watch. 18 month ago, the generals either for seflt interested reason or policy reasons opened up the country. they become sort of the future leader of the country. i'm sure she will. and they have now taken a lot of press freedom off. press restrictions off. no all of a sudden, the underlying hidden tensions in the society, which they had

brutally repressed for fifty years, which are primarily religious in nature and violent are becoming apparent. so what will happen as a society works through these tensions will the hard liners come back. for example, in next month they are going to vote on a sort of press freedom law that looks a lot like the chinese is a addition law. which is a problem. most not a no brainer that these countries immediately adopt the western notions of openness, criticism, all of those kind of thing. maybe there's an alternative path. >> you say it's not inevitable they quickly adopted. it inevitable they eventually adopt. >> it's inevitable they adopt systems which work well for the middle class of the country. the middle class is empowered with the devices and the middle class will define what it wants. and ask for it. it may not look like the kind of freedom we have.

it will be a lot more free that night people have been operating up until now. >> hi. [inaudible] a bit more about how the u.s. government leverages technology to foreign policy. so i found it interesting that obamacare campaign hired 300 data analysts to look at the messenger, the policy, what platform. if you look at the state department for the national security counsel, i think there is a zero or a handful of data analysts. so does it look like our ambassadors are like campaign managers for the dash board saying it's a policy, this is messenger. this the platform that we should use? could you go beyond social media and sort of share your thought on leverage data to form foreign policy? >> the current problem is still that -- the good news is the foreign policy apparatus or the importance of technology. the problem is we still view in

foreign policy technology through the lens of public diplomacy and communicating. i'm not touting the importance of public diplomacy and communicating. that's one instrument of stay craft. the bigger sort of role of the technology can play is in how it empowers local entity and individuals who address local challenges. there's a huge role in the technology can play around analyzing and correlating data. i'll give you one example. google idea we look a lot at how do we use data to mass expose from traffickers to organ harvesters to human trafficking networks. terrorist organize organizations. when you look how they are organized in government they are deeply -- so the people working on human trafficking that typically falls in the human rights area. when people were working on -- it's the dea area. we silo these things. we look at them through the lens of their functions rather than

through the less than of data. now all of these organizations work with each other. take money-laundering, for example, if you can follow the money you can trade the money back to the organizations. so i didn't realize this until i got to google and you start talking to engineers about the problems. when engineers look at them, they continue look at them through the remembers of one function or another. they want to see the math and the data. they want to correlate it. they are silo busters. tremendous silo busters. it leads me to believe that one of the biggest problems we have is, you know, how do you convince students of computer science. how do you convince electrical engineering students it's in their interest and relative to serve in the public sector. i'm worried about a crisis of my generation in some respect we are more connected more entrepreneurial than any other generation. we are less willing to serve than any other generation. in the public sector. we have to fix that.

>> a quick word from the sponsor. this is -- book series. i want to thank them. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. jared, i would like to come back to something you mentioned before about technology making the rebellion easier to start or finish. why do you think that is? this is, somehow, for example, iran it almost seemed like a disconnect between the power that people were getting through social media and reality on the ground. there's a disconnect when people's hope raised by technology meet the reality on the ground? >> i think there's a couple of issues. technology can give people in some place like iran a false sense of how things are going just because there is a crowd that is articulating something. there's a lot of momentum and noise online that may

translate to the streets. we may see it next month. you are starting to see expectations raised online in iran about doing something similar to what they did in june of 2009. my guess is because they crush the green revolution so brutally and rooted out the leaders we shouldn't expect something. as extraordinary. i think that the challenge is you still comes down leadership. if you look at the nelson minute deal will. it took decades for these guys to emerge as leaders and eventually they became public figure. we reversed the model now. public figures first who may become leader. that being said, in any societies if they are true leaders who have the credibility to take their country forward, technology can find them. in that sense, you have a leveler playing field. but can't invest them overnight. >> in the book you talk about building up the credentialtual.

new leader, it's different in the virtual world than it is in the physical world. >> i think we came to the conclusion, you know, it's easy to say technology will drive all of these changes. but the essence of human leadership is still very hard, very important, very person dependent end. very much dependent on the can reis ma. and excited to motivate. it will take a long time for computers to get used to. >> okay. [inaudible] >> assume you are right as opposed to plato and -- [inaudible] about -- [inaudible] anonymity. [inaudible] [laughter] anonymity is here to stay. what does it say about cyber crimes then? you have been a victim of it. it's your company and so forth. do you we have to completely separate the networking that to be secure like -- [inaudible conversations] >> we better.

>> and that sort of thing. >> i hope the nuclear power plant control room are separated from the internet. >> that's right. it's a bigger thing to celebrate all the thing that we like to be completely safe from potential attack now. is that feasible. >> again, let me tell you a little bit about this. a system most concerned about around life safety thing are called systems are command and control systems. and they are typically not connected to the internet. and unless israeli and americans actually attack one with the iranian reprocessing by essentially getting a virus to the machine. and again, we'll see if it's true or not. it took a tremendous amount of work. you're not supposed to be -- indeed in the united i can sacred call military networks command and control networkings are highly separated and highly secure and highly illegal to, you know, move your computer from one to the other. and they have done all the right

things there. i don't worry as much about those as i worry about increasing reliance of business systems that are mission critical on the public internet that are subject to trial service attack. we talk about it in the book. to net it out, the simplest thing for you do ask is remember two thing. make sure you are not using common password across all of your accounts. and make sure that the password is hard to guess. the fellow running the ap twitter account just learned that lesson. right. to the tune of some number of hundreds of billions of dollars of losses from someone. and the second is, don't download malware, soft you don't know. and make sure you are run the chrome brower is from google and free. it's the only brower is not broking. the combination of those will give you high degree of security. if you run a company, a

the most recent version of software. almost all of the attacks are ones where the attacker finds a -- sitting in closet not updated with the latest antisecurity patches and to forth and manages to get in and does the rest of the attack. >> right here. >> yeah. i'll go back to you next. i think there was -- [inaudible] yeah. >> agnostic. and internet operates on passion and waves. when the waves overwhelm science i.t. and information not based on fact and scientific like we see with climate change or biotechnology. it goes against testimonying that could help the world. in a world of naftion ising a noisic. -- information that is agnostic how do you deal? >> the theme of the book is the next five million people.

like at the alternative. the alternative is a world where every generation after the next is being essentially socialized and trained based on -- [inaudible] what they are memorizing is often factually inaccurate, distorted, disillusional, whatever other adjective you want to use. ultimately i i i believe in the power of critical thinking. we write it in the book. the new people connecting to the internet. think about how many are young and school age. the vast majority. the young people with mobile devices in their hands whether the teacher show up at school or not. or told to memorize thick. the mobile device is the most vehicle against world incredibly influenced by rogue themmization. it's not ideal and the perfect answer. the power of critical thinking is important. >> i agree with that. people can be fightenned by business interests. so lest say you are busy selling that hurting people.

go back to the cigarette example in the 1960. you can imagine using the profit of the corporation to spread to falsehood. it would be true today that an alternative group that would amass a big group saying it's crazy. first you see them as choices and the ranking algorithm would sort out which one. i think we have pretty good answer the more information even with sponsored and we called it biz information. business misinformation people are trying to misinform you. they sort it out -- when you see something that doesn't quite make sense, check it. [laughter] so for example, there a site called smokes.com. and every day i get a message that -- it doesn't quite look. i check to see if it's correct. and the internet is full of this. we may be going through a period

of deciding where we went from having trusted sources informing to possibly trusted sources information. one of the core conversation we have to have as a country and society to check. when you watch teevision and you're maybe being a little bit manipulated rather than believe it. why don't you check it? you are on a website that looks a little bit promotional. maybe you should check it. right. google is available. [laughter] >> if i wonder if you talk about a little bit -- looking in to drug trafficking. you talk about the concrete or more promising application that you have seen in the degree of corporation with u.n. and mexican government. we're going have obama going mexico and it's one of the topics i'm convinced we have really not used technology to the degree as we could. >> let me start an observation. eric and i took a trip to --

>> it was last year. sometime in the last year. and we were start told find that all of the police officers were wearing face masks. imagine living in city that is already very dangerous. st so dangerous that the police are there to supposedly protect you don't want anyone to know their identity. t more extraordinary while the police are busy hiding themselves, the population is busy using their real identities to essentially crowd source where the violence is. they are using various microblogging platforms and social media platform and said there's a virtual courage happening as a result of people coming online. what we find interesting and write about in the book is a challenge that it's not unique to mexico. it's best illustrated by mexico. when you talk about free expression, people talk about in the context of being iran and north korea and cuba of the

world. where the state is actually doing censorship. in mexico, you know, by all accounts the mexican government is democracy. it's a censored site. it's censored because people seflt sensor out of fear. out in of the government but demonstrate actor inspect this case the various car -- how do you solve the problem of removing fear through technology? and so we look at this in the book and explore various ways to encourage anonymous reporting. considerable reporter networks and lying if i said there's a silver bullet answer. t a great example what we were say before. engineers love the kinds of problem. >> think of it as problem of anonymous reporting and responders you conduct a networking so the players can help police the situation when the police themselves are corrupt?

which is a reasonably secret location in mexico city which is underground. they build data mining system. they apprehend somebody they can figure out who they are. the immediate realabama were those of americans which is think about the possible civil liberty violence. so country under such terrible, terrible attack from in this case criminal gain might stoop to building an action which a subsequent government might then misuse again the law-abiding citizen inspect is the trade-off. it's not obvious where it will go. let me tell you that the conversation is very severe. >> the question has a mexican conversation. i agree there's no delete button the internet. companies including your own have term in community and community standards. i don't know if you saw the story that came out yesterday about two viral video depicting decapitation.

apparently in mexico. which went viral in my daughter's high school. at the beginning of the day facebook was standing by saying even though it was showinggraphic violence. it was in the public interest. yet by the end of the day, having online petition and a number weighing in decided to take them down. so how do decide what is in the public interest or not? >> youtube has a five-page document which defines precisely what it is. i haven't seen the video. i would be extreme extremely surprised if it passed our test we would allow it. >> i read in a magazine about facebook, youtube, google. each having -- [inaudible] how does it work? >> every company has a set of rules about this. for the web, google is search index. we don't have ab ability to take them down. and if we d it would be

censorship in the form of filtering which we don't do. on youtube where we host the contest we have term of surfacing. i'm assuming twitter and facebook have the policy. they may not have the same criteria or rule. it's up to the company. [inaudible] a virtual currency in the news late i and the value of the coins rises and falls based on demand and google stockpiles large numbers. what is interesting about it, though, that the problem is virtual wallet. so they have to download a digital wallet to store it. there a number where the instances have been hacked. the canada government tried to create the own national --

they couldn't protect the virtual wallet. obviously you will see more movement to vigil currency and virtual yule goods as well. there's security risks that come with. [inaudible] all of the technology have various form of digital wallet. it's more efficient. the phone have a nfc chip which allows you to go to a pad near it. you swipe buy and velocity matters. it's going happen. >> why don't we have something very simple from google like an ease pass if i'm going around the web and i want to buy today's "new york times" or buy, you know, something i know a

wallet can get hacked. but my easy pass. >> we have google wall. >> yeah buts in to the an easy dp. >> it sounds like a simple proposal worked in this for a long time. these are complicated system. they are subject to many regulations. they are all sorts of fraud issue. paypal, of course, is the company that is faces the most that worked through them. others have as well. and so you just find a particular kind of wallet. a wallet willing to lose the money in. most people not agree with you on. they don't want a wallet. you still don't have a single -- across the site. facebook and google and others are trying to promote it. we are -- we'll get there. we'll do it in a different way. the journalism industry if people can make quick, easy, --

>> the technology -- it's been around far lock time. so it's not a technological problem a sort of provisioning scale problem. >> yes, ma'am, and in the way back. i'm sorry. >> thank you. i think we all appreciate what you did in connecting the human trafficking data because of making it more efficient for access. there are so many -- data silo. i'm very interested in uniting our theft data base. there are too many of them and you can't search across them if you are looking for something. is google doing more in the area? >> we have groups that reach tout the close community. it's important to know it's their data. not ours. and their decision to make it available. and the largest probe of useful data that is not available to google is that in federal state

and local government. who have enormous architecture. the information should be public. it's interest many public, et. cetera. it's not going cause a huge confidential problem to make it public. the government will run more efficiently -- and see what the government was up to. and i think -- for the reason you said and so forth we're looking on it. the core message is that your job is to publish information, and you don't publish it on to the web to such a way -- google can find it. you're not really doing the job. and indeed we respect something called robot stop text which says don't call me. so if you talk to one of these firms saying, oh, okay. you have public site you are proud of yourself. do you have robot text that prevent google and the competitors from getting information. you may find they have them. >> the electronic --

[inaudible] that's a whole hour. >> let me summarize by saying -- in under the bush administration, the government did a good job of promoting interoperatability -- a set of standard allowing them to be exchanged with each other. it's a state-of-the-art. no computer scientist would ever design the recordkeeping the way it's evolving in the medical industry. it makes no sense whatsoever. that's why it's difficult. it will vently get -- it will be very slow. way back. >> there's a pretty will i can't report coming out today from david robinson on censorship technology in china. and it's called collateral freedom. >> they are actually putting up a link right now which i'll pass on. >> who is it from? >> harlan u and david robinson.

robinson u. is the firm. they surveyed 1,175 censorship evasion technology users in china. t a one-a kind thing. they are not using them but bpn. and up ending the wack mole model. chinos where the moalg are. they are not wacking them because disrupting the technology would disrupt the business users for making lot money nearby. is it something you have seen in china or something where the wack mole is stopping right before it hits the pole. it's going screw up the economy or other part of society. >> the specific technology used to do encryptic contribution. the most notable use is the use in wick -- wikileaks. the bpn technology is the kind you are describing when you have an intermediate proxy you can go through. so all of the ante-dotal

evidence we have and people are continued to reach google services through wack mole and able to get there. g-mail is block obd -- order of halftime. for reasons we can't tell. our search efforts are blocked periodically. we can't quite tell the reason. the rough is roughly accurate. we have to take a look at it. >> the last question. >> [inaudible] can you comment on the observation about women in technology? >> anies aspect of it be it leadership, use of technology in developing countries. >> i would start by -- >> be it safety? >> i would start by saying that we and i am normally proud of this next-gen ration of women leadership in technology. we're seeing driving it to new

heights. it's exciting and it's occurring in an industry which is -- [inaudible] >> the point i would add. again, in the book we talk about 5 billion new people coming online. the majority of the 5 billion are women. and our observation, we travel around the world people do better in school. women are more entrepreneurial. and a lot of societies where women have been held back and the men sit around playing video games and working for the government. what finally starting to happen it's something certain countries 80% of the male population works with the public sector. so the combination of women who are already moving forward very fast in the society with some of the new freedom that have plus technology will be extraordinary for the worlded. >> on a very serious note, the empowerment of the technologies allows a very local nature of horrific crimes against women hob recorded and policed.

and there are so many examples we visited one which i don't think we'll ever forget. we visited in pakistan a group of women that hads acid thrown on the faces. i can't describe how horrific the crime is. they were using the internet to recover their identity. on the internet no one knew they had been so victimized. building businesses, achieving the on jettive in a society where the shame was shuch they couldn't go out of their home. they were trying to use the internet to put pressure on the acute -- accused which were inevitably known but not prosecuted for one of the worse crimes in humanitarian. i felt felt we should what we do. it's for that reason. >> we'll end by saying education around the world will be transformed and the people who least benefited and parts of the world from education have been girls and women.

i hope it will be major transmore -- tran formational. it hit the best seller list the week out.

>> 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 gdoofor 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 ways. 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 friginvernment 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-fi what is 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. it's perfectly possible that the north korea does not become a democracy on day one. it's arrogant of americans to thinksha somehow democracy occurs in one day. it took a long day. and america was formed in unique way. everybody of you are refugee

from other places except for the indians. it's possible you could see a transition not unlike what south korea went through. south korea was poor, relatively run by a strong man. relatively unfree and over some number of decades became more freer. >> does technology eventually make democracy inevitable. >> one of the observations that we kim away with. we were there a month ago. less than 1% of the population has access to the internet. access to the internet. everybody heard of it. they understood the internet as a set of values. as a concept and idea even

before they experienced it as a user or as a tool. their understanding of the internet was not based on a chinese -- internet. it was not based on a autocrat version of the internet. they understand it in term of the western value of free flow of information and civil liberty. what means you have 57% of the world's population living under an -- what happens when regime try to create an awe karattic internet that doesn't respond with the democratic understanding what it should be. what does look like? we don't know the answer yet. >> finish on burma. so this will be a wonderful experiment for all of us to watch. 18 month ago, the generals either for seflt interested reason or policy reasons opened up the country. they become sort of the future leader of the country. i'm sure she will. and they have now taken a lot of press freedom off. press restrictions off.

no all of a sudden, the underlying hidden tensions in the society, which they had brutally repressed for fifty years, which are primarily religious in nature and violent are becoming apparent. so what will happen as a society works through these tensions will the hard liners come back. for example, in next month they are going to vote on a sort of press freedom law that looks a lot like the chinese is a addition law. which is a problem. most not a no brainer that these countries immediately adopt the western notions of openness, criticism, all of those kind of thing. maybe there's an alternative path. >> you say it's not inevitable they quickly adopted. it inevitable they eventually adopt. >> it's inevitable they adopt systems which work well for the middle class of the country. the middle class is empowered with the devices and the middle class will define what it wants.

and ask for it. it may not look like the kind of freedom we have. it will be a lot more free that night people have been operating up until now. >> hi. [inaudible] a bit more about how the u.s. government leverages technology to foreign policy. so i found it interesting that obamacare campaign hired 300 data analysts to look at the messenger, the policy, what platform. if you look at the state department for the national security counsel, i think there is a zero or a handful of data analysts. so does it look like our ambassadors are like campaign managers for the dash board saying it's a policy, this is messenger. this the platform that we should use? could you go beyond social media and sort of share your thought on leverage data to form foreign policy? >> the current problem is still that -- the good news is the foreign policy apparatus or the

importance of technology. the problem is we still view in foreign policy technology through the lens of public diplomacy and communicating. i'm not touting the importance of public diplomacy and communicating. that's one instrument of stay craft. the bigger sort of role of the technology can play is in how it empowers local entity and individuals who address local challenges. there's a huge role in the technology can play around analyzing and correlating data. i'll give you one example. google idea we look a lot at how do we use data to mass expose from traffickers to organ harvesters to human trafficking networks. terrorist organize organizations. when you look how they are organized in government they are deeply -- so the people working on human trafficking that typically falls in the human rights area. when people were working on -- it's the dea area.

we silo these things. we look at them through the lens of their functions rather than through the less than of data. now all of these organizations work with each other. take money-laundering, for example, if you can follow the money you can trade the money back to the organizations. so i didn't realize this until i got to google and you start talking to engineers about the problems. when engineers look at them, they continue look at them through the remembers of one function or another. they want to see the math and the data. they want to correlate it. they are silo busters. tremendous silo busters. it leads me to believe that one of the biggest problems we have is, you know, how do you convince students of computer science. how do you convince electrical engineering students it's in their interest and relative to serve in the public sector. i'm worried about a crisis of my generation in some respect we are more connected more entrepreneurial than any other generation. we are less willing to serve

than any other generation. in the public sector. we have to fix that. >> a quick word from the sponsor. this is -- book series. i want to thank them. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. jared, i would like to come back to something you mentioned before about technology making the rebellion easier to start or finish. why do you think that is? this is, somehow, for example, iran it almost seemed like a disconnect between the power that people were getting through social media and reality on the ground. there's a disconnect when people's hope raised by technology meet the reality on the ground? >> i think there's a couple of issues. technology can give people in some place like iran a false sense of how things are going just because there is a crowd

that is articulating something. there's a lot of momentum and noise online that may not translate to the streets. we may see it next month. you are starting to see expectations raised online in iran about doing something similar to what they did in june of 2009. my guess is because they crush the green revolution so brutally and rooted out the leaders we shouldn't expect something. as extraordinary. i think that the challenge is you still comes down leadership. if you look at the nelson minute deal will. it took decades for these guys to emerge as leaders and eventually they became public figure. we reversed the model now. public figures first who may become leader. that being said, in any societies if they are true leaders who have the credibility to take their country forward, technology can find them. in that sense, you have a leveler playing field. but can't invest them

overnight. >> in the book you talk about building up the credential eventually. new leader, it's different in the virtual world than it is in the physical world. >> i think we came to the conclusion, you know, it's easy to say technology will drive all of these changes. but the essence of human leadership is still very hard, very important, very person dependent end. very much dependent on the can reis ma. and excited to motivate. it will take a long time for computers to get used to. >> okay. [inaudible] >> assume you are right as opposed to plato and -- [inaudible] about -- [inaudible] anonymity. [inaudible] [laughter] anonymity is here to stay. what does it say about cyber crimes then? you have been a victim of it. it's your company and so forth. do you w