you are trying to target a u.s. person outside of the united states. >> can you call that reversed targeting? >> it's clearly can't target the u.s. person outside of the united states. the person is also outside the united states, is that permissible? >> now. >> because he would be targeting, if your real purpose, your targeting that person. >> the prohibition on this is expensive with this. >> again i think it is a geographic issue, essentially when you have a legitimate

target overseas and you really want to medications of u.s. person inside the united states and the statute says he can't do that. especially if you have a u.s. person that you are interested in overseas. >> both of them are overseas. can you target a non-us person to get this medication? >> you can't go for that purpose. but if a non-us person overseas is a valid target you are interested in her eric medications, you can target that person as well. and i would consider that reversed targeting. >> taking a look at section 704, it may address the kind of concern that you're focused on.

>> getting back to the efficacy and are charged to look at the bounds between national security and liberties. following upon the question, i will hold on to the next round. >> going upstream a little bit, i've seen some statements of this and what can you tell us in a public setting about that? >> i think the best is from the october 11, 2011 opinion which has been declassified. there is a rough estimate their but about 10% of the collection is upstream. on the order of magnitude, i just don't have the exact number or. >> of. >> okay. so you said in an earlier lesson that the collection from upstream is retained for a shorter. lack of time and he said that the reason for that is part of

this upstream collection. can you elaborate on what of the additional privacy concerns? >> a lot of this is laid out in this is now public from the fall 2011. i think the because of the nature, which we have discussed, there is potentially a greater likelihood of indicating this or inadvertently collecting holy domestic medications. for a variety of circumstances we have evaluated the minimization and as a consequence the government put forth a shorter retention period to ensure that the court could reach a comfort with the compliance of the fourth amendment. so that's one element of the revised procedures that are now public. >> what you just said, losing

this past for us as part of this. >> there are specifics of the on the top of my head. i can't create this off the top of my head, but there are in elaborate set of detailed procedures that are now public. and how we must go for this concern. having things like data must be segregated certain ways with the risk of collecting this and that is higher. there's a shorter retention period. it is not permitted under the statute and therefore is a default rule. >> is there something that you wanted to talk about? >> i wanted to use the word incidental collection in your definition seems to be that by incidental you mean the person

on the other end of the phone from a non-us person abroad is a non-us person. >> guess. >> is there another definition that you are aware of? >> i think there has been some frustration with the use of the term incidental and not context. because it's not accidental. it's intentional and unavoidable and i just want to make sure we are on the same page and you may not accidental or unintentional but this is actually what we are doing. >> it is incidental and it is not inadvertent and incidental is the appropriate term. >> okay. >> that term is far beyond this program personal judgment and it's just a term. >> okay. >> is following up on david's

question. going to a broader point there is a perception that is very complicated and there has to be loopholes or idiosyncrasies. would be the view of the united states government that it is appropriate to use 702 in order to intentionally target the u.s. persons directly or through reversed targeting or whether they are inside the united states or outside the united states? >> is permissible. >> he would like to also follow up on a question and i apologize we spent 6.5 hours talking with folks about this the oversight mechanisms in place, we are unable to get through that entire conversation so i apologize if you have for this being said the fort worth today. collection methods with respect

to those procedures, are they approved as part of the fisa court? >> at. >> are those transparent to congress? >> yes. >> i think we haven't necessarily -- we started to eluded us. but can you talk a little bit about your impression of how the intel committee in particular views their obligations with respect to oversight of their programs and whether you have found an experienced that to be any way lacking. >> not quite eye rolls. >> the responses know that they have not fallen to this degree in any way. >> i have been on this job getting on towards five years and i have found nothing about this to be performance as far as

being porters. they have fairly substantial staffs which have experienced from the community and they dig very deeply and what we do and it uses the term wire brush and brushing for the interactions that we have with the committee. >> affected datapoint. programs that this we are talking about today, we all live through the reauthorization of action 702 and 2012. that process was not in connection with the intelligence committee. i remember numerous briefings of the committee supposed than the congress. so i don't want to leave the impression that it's only part of this that needs to be voted on by all members of congress. >> i want to make sure that my

colleagues have time. >> going back to the minimization question and specifically the incidental collection question. am i correct that the rule is that whether the information is inadvertently collected that we are on the wrong selector or so mistake was made and you got something he that you didn't intend to get that is an inverted. or you were correctly targeting the right account and the medications to or from a u.s.

person that is incidental. the procedures say the minimization is if you never discover that it's inadvertent or incidental you'd never realize it was a u.s. person's collection and it's deleted after five years. you keep it for five years and keep everything for five years. two years upstream in five years on the prism and then against alito. that's the rule. >> correct. >> then on top of that then you discover through analysis and viewing it but it was inadvertent with incidental collection on the u.s. person and you must immediately purge this. >> there's a difference with

inadvertent and incidental and to use those terms. it never refers to a collection that was not authorized by law. that is encouraged. >> person lost. >> dimension there are certain exceptions and i'm certainly not able to recite them but they do exist and they are fairly narrow. incidental is authorized by law. and then at that point the rules relating to u.s. persons kagan is you determine that has no intelligence value or will be purged. >> what is your response to the argument and to be think it's valuable you can keep it and if you don't think it's valuable, then you purge it. i mean, it is like lawfully collected. >> fair enough. >> but if it is a interest to

you. >> if it can be useful to providing intelligence to policymakers need against threats, then yes, we keep it for the required timeframe. >> to time frame. >> to make it more concrete if it's a terrorist overseas, calling a number in the united states, we want to keep that information in its incidental and he's calling minneapolis. we want to keep that tradition. because it is of high interest to us. >> 1.0 point i would add is the minimization first two steps in the process, everything from collection to review to dissemination and we are thinking about one element here. there are different stages to disseminate that and this would have to be met and so forth a. >> i know that it's totally embedded both in law and

guideline and practice. but the minimization means different things and keep it for five years and then delete it. it means don't disseminate. identifying information and the means to leave it unless it is intelligence information and those are very different. >> they all fall within this and am going to mangle it will do. but it's designed to minimize the acquisition and retention and dissemination about consenting of united states persons consistent with the need to produce foreign intelligence information. so you're going to have different minimization was based upon a particular missions of the agencies and different minimization rules depending on the nature of the activity viewer governing and what is part of this. but minimization is that entire

category. >> it is a little bit of a circular definition as well. which means different things in different contexts. >> it is a balance. >> i was alluding to that the fbi does have its own standard procedure with respect to this activity and i seem to have access to those. and there's a lot on the table that we just talked about and i would direct you to those as well in terms of understanding the role of the app the eye. >> when the u.s. person information has been incidentally acquired and kept for legitimate reasons and whatever in the base, it is disseminated as is permitted permitted with certain circumstances. i think that would be useful for public consumption to no what

the process entails and what circumstances are not masked and whether or not the different agencies can use different criteria is whether it is all centralized by the attorney general's supervision. >> i can speak in general and abstract from the second party for a moment, subs are tooting a u.s. person for the u.s. person is part of the legal term and it could mean a u.s. company or firm. >> different agencies decide how to interpret their own criteria. >> in this context it is part of

immunization issues. >> so what does that tell me? >> is typically as to whether or not the circumstances -- it's up to each agency or not. >> it's done on an agency by agency basis. >> generally speaking i think the rules of each agency, it is not necessary to understand this intelligence so if it is joe smith and his name is necessary and key that they understand that that is joe smith because that is relevant to understanding what this is, let's say that he is a cyberhacker or whatever. and if it's not, it was not

pertinent to the information you're trying to convey, then that would be deleted and blocked out. so they would say communication with u.s. person and i think that's how it works with all of the agencies. >> the big principals are necessary to understand the evidence of a crime and that's effectuated through the minimization procedures that each agency had. so it's articulated as was mentioned. >> with those just take the nsa as an example or mask the criteria? also including foreigners and non-us persons asking some question which might require a nontargeted person in this

basis. with these masking procedures apply this just for u.s. persons? >> in today's world it is for u.s. persons because they are a derivative of the constitutional requirement that need to conform with the constitutional men. >> so we have made it up to the agency to decide whether it is right or wrong to give that information throughout their two points to mention. >> having made that decision? >> the second point is that i think that what the president has directed them to examine in this is what protections could be extended. and that is the study. >> is that what you're working on? >> that is the issues. >> one quick comment. if you look at this which is title i of fisa, i don't think

it restricts it with respect to u.s. person or non-us person that no federal officer or employee can disclose the information at all except for lawful purposes. >> i don't have anything else. >> i wanted to make sure that i understood the question in the response. under what circumstances can this be made to a foreign government. are there separate agreements and procedures that might govern and will be a the analyst be able to decide that they would like to provide this to foreign governments? >> at least our procedures are publicly available that have provisions with the second party partners and i can certainly get back to you on that.

especially with what information can be shared with second party partners. >> i think the critical point is part of the minimization procedures that are approved. especially with section 702. >> the minimization procedures are only for u.s. persons. aren't they? >> yes, that is right. >> but there are general rules about what we have advised for information. >> i want to thank the panel very much for spending a fair amount of time for us in this public setting. we appreciate it. we'll take a short break and resume their second panel. [inaudible conversations]

>> so, do you think you're any wiser? >> the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, samantha power, one that the u.s. is prepared to add additional sanctions on russia because of it intervention in crimea. she made the remarks at a u.n. security council meeting on monday. >> thank you, madam president. thank you, deputy secretary general for your briefings. representative began his intervention extolling the referendum as a democratic embodying procedure and having been conducted without outside interference. russia is known for its literary greatness. what you just heard from the russian ambassador showed why imagination than tolstoy or check off terry has decided to

rewrite its borders, but it cannot rewrite the facts. the united states rejects russia's military intervention in crimea and these actions again violate the territorial agreements international law and the letter and spirit of the united nations charter. two days ago president obama and other world leaders put in place sanctions in response to the blatant disregard for global opinion on the legal rights of the ukraine. we are prepared to take additional steps with this if russian publication continues. in this chamber when a crisis began, the russian federation described his intervention into crimea is a human rights protection mission. they claimed that the recent change of government in the ukraine constituted such a

danger to them in crimea that military action was justified. assistant secretary general simone of edge's briefing, said it's always about one country's ambition, to redraw its own borders. indeed, if there was ever a time to be concerned, it is now. reports indicate the cases of harassment have been directed by russian allies against ethnic ukrainians and others. the community which constitutes 12% of the population is rightly fearful of again falling victim to deportation or discrimination. the crimean that the prime minister has recently announced that they will be evicted from some of their land which he claimed is needed for the structure projects.

the body of a crimean was discovered on sunday. he had last been seen at a protest on march 3. his body reportedly showed signs of torture and russian troops reportedly stormed apartment buildings and ukrainian borders and their families, threatening and demanding their immediate departure. in addition we are seriously concerned about activists and restrictions and journalists in crimea. accordingly, the united states supports the rapid deployment of international observers in all parts of the ukraine and we believe it is instructive that the government of the ukraine has repeatedly welcomed the deployment and the russian federation has not. again, today indiana russia was the lone country to block an lcd monitoring mission. their russia was dramatically outnumbered. it was the lone dissenting voice

out of 57 countries. fifty-six of them, it seemed, had a different view. russian officials say that they understand the urgency. but they vote with their feet, relying on military forces and refusing to allow the deployment of those that could help to defuse the crisis and prevent further violence. after hearing my russian colleagues on the assistant secretary-general's report minutes ago, i see the logic of russian obstruction and objective information is inconvenient to the russian tale. we call upon all parties to support these observer missions, including their access to crimea. we want to thank members of this council for taking a strong stance on russia's intervention in the ukraine and for making clear that russia stands alone and in its failed in a logical and audacious attempt to justify actions that cannot be justified. five days ago this council

described the separatist referendum as invalid and only a single hand rose in opposition. when they said that they can be part of the status of crimea, only a single hand rose in opposition. it now has taken place and legal status has not changed. a thief can still property, but that does not confer the right of ownership. in closing, let me just emphasize what russia has done, it is wrong as a matter of law and of history and of policy and dangerous. what happened in crimea cannot be recognized as valid. we must stand together denying recognition and imposing consequences for this illegal act. in doing so we must be very clear that what happened in

crimea cannot be repeated in other parts of the ukraine. thank you. >> c-span2 is providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings in key public policy events. every weekend booktv, for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 is created and funded by your local satellite provider. follow us on twitter. >> a look at technology and privacy. we will start with eric smith and they are book, the new digital age. and later, cybersecurity and cyberwar, what everyone needs to know. >> on the next washington "washington journal", our guest

was formally within nato national security force to achieve correspondent for yahoo! news joins us to discuss how american presidents have reached out to other world leaders during times of crisis. and we will focus on janet yellen's plans at the federal reserve. with a chief economics correspondent for the "the wall street journal." "washington journal" is live on c-span everyday at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> eric schmidt lays out his vision of the future in which everyone is digitally connected. this event was at the computer history museum in mountain view, california, earlier this month. [applause]

>> my good friend and mentor and colleague eric schmidt is here. today we are talking about the new digital age and the future of the world. >> i keep running into lean and within google. >> we are excited. eric was the first person who hired me in silicon valley when many people wouldn't. >> it worked out well for you. you've done so much better. [laughter] >> talk about this a lot. he continues to be that for me and i am so grateful. i met cheered when i first came to facebook and he is friends with us.

chris said that there is one guy that totally gets it. and he runs around the world trying to get other people together. so he has been important to our industry and technology. so so excited to be here with you. from the beginning, it's not even that obviously would even know each other well. so how did you meet? what would possess you to sit down. >> i went along and it's been sort of interesting and we have shown up in baghdad. we were one of the first people to show than a commercial flight. >> to manila to do with you?

>> now. >> my daughter sophie took video and i remember. and what have you talked about? >> we get to the airport and normally when people arrive, guards are eager to get out of there. and what does he do? before he will ask a the security detail to give him an in-depth history of this. and it's not because he's worried about the safety and security. but because he's a geeky scientist and once you understand that and at what

stage did it move from over there. >> we truly have part of this reveals. >> you become very close with them somewhere between 40 and 45 countries and we both began this journey and they wanted nice hotels and it's easy to go back inside. >> he has never moved to south korea and he wants to north korea. and there's only one place that i couldn't convince him to go. which was small yet. >> no hotels at all. >> no government or banks are

institutions. >> that's one place that i don't think i'm going to go back. if we go to south sudan, it is the world's newest country and we get there and 90% of the revenue comes from oil and the government has basically cut this off as we basically have no money or police force and nothing in the leadership, what are they choose to do? spend their time. >> it's unclear whether he's involved in government. these who have left. >> this makes you want to write a book. >> i eventually talked to her and we met in new york.

and i said i want to write about. and she said that's interesting to me. and the technology people don't really understand what foreign policy and i don't always understand foreign policy. see be shocked at how miserable most people's lives are like. >> we could wonderful world around us for granted. maybe we could fix some of these problems. >> era, this was a hard one for me to read. >> i felt very certain that you did. and to be honest, if you don't understand this, that is a little concerning.

>> my career has been for the last 35 years, a half-mile right now. something wild and wacky comes out. and things are part of that. what was called net date. people are enormously creative. and i think for the last 10 or 20 years, we are seeing more good and bad surprises.

>> this is an example. [laughter] >> it's not relevant to this today. >> the internet is the largest experiment involving this in history. you are a student and scholar and a practitioner of what is society and democracy instead. >> so if you think about the definition of anarchy in the context of international relations committee was going in the early 20th century around the idea that even though every piece of territory on earth will be some kind of sovereign territory, the world is not going to pull in the sense that there's no central leadership. every sense an attempt at the world has make, it's been rendered ineffective, which is one of the challenges of

institutions. another 5 billion people coming online, think about they are having a sars trouble with the online world. in cyberspace it seems very difficult in controlling the entire thing is a difficult experiment. >> we can't even agree on some basic rules. so now we have to deal with globalization of issues of copyright and free speech and issues of morality. and what do we do when something bad is happening. we have been on book tours for a while and maybe there are limits to what you can do. maybe there are some problems. >> you're willing to say such a bold statement. there might be limit. >> we describe it the world's largest ungoverned space and you think about the power, military

and etc. they don't really work as effectively as they do. >> the treaty was basically established the international system of a sovereign state. based on an idea that you can have different legal jurisdictions that are governed. all of that begins to break down as it comes online. so the states will have this based on the traditional instruments that we had before. but it may be a cyberpower on the online world. so if you look at estonia and sweden, it is connected.

>> i have concluded that foreign policy has not changed in a long time. realism progressives and so forth. >> what is a part of this is the empowerment that smart phones and the internet are providing to citizens and the other thing is data permanence. generally known can't be put back in the box. so that drives lots of issues. static and foreign policy. >> what other things? they have the power what technology can do and the book focuses on what the others can do online and many of our other audiences have been a part of

this. >> is right. >> getting in trouble. >> so where are the boundaries. >> when does the internet stop and bad stuff happens. >> and there is a lot of clear evidence to me -- and i want to go back to this, we can fix education with the internet and entertainment information.

we can ask this as well. >> eric's point syria and the ukraine offered compelling example. >> millions and there's no shortage of video coming out of syria. each one of those videos is more horrific than the one before it. seeing what exists on their various profiles. and so they were just in syria. another place i'm not going. and you actually shouldn't go

and there are some contacts and they told me a story of this and all of a sudden they get to the and they collapse and someone came in from the other boring to close the window and it took them them a full month and a half to find out what had happened because of the information blackout. and those led to checkpoints by the government and etc. if they don't like what they see and orders them to shoot enough to exactly what happened because of something they found. and it also needs a cyberhumanitarian intervention

and they now have a song and spends all day trying to find out what is going on and caught in the crossfire. and that's the largest number of people in this horrific tragedy that don't understand this and all of these different things and there's a real question that we are geopolitically aware and trying to address, trying to make sure that the average citizen is secure online even if they are not physically insecure. >> the government is better now. but imagine that mutations in history that is the only legitimate possible business and everyone has smart phones and there's nothing else. >> so that becomes even more

important. and how uk an alert that there others around the corner and we heard a story when we were in libya of girls that watch where the nato bombings were so they could get themselves to school. so now imagine that in your smart phone is taken by someone and you have your contact list and her friends that can impersonate you and so forth. >> it is interesting to your point. i think when you think back at the atrocities there is a sense of people not knowing and had we known we would've intervened and i think that it strikes me now that we know. >> when you write google, she set up this with the social

consciousness that development. and it's basically problems of the third world. .. that, things have gotten better because they have gotten connected. >> that is the striking thing. to your point that the internet can't fix everything. so let's talk about the military. this is a day to honor but the general is here with us today and she's she's the first woman whoever became a four-star general in the u.s. military and it is an honor to have her. [applause] >> and the dear friend of mine and let's talk about this. so you show up in baghdad. they gave you a jacket but it wasn't sufficient and we come upon other day and explain. explaining why these jackets are

the way they are. but how does this affect the military? >> my immediate reaction was we are fighting this old way rather than a new way. as we basically seem to deal with the citizens. and what is the best thing you can do and build them in a protective fiber optic network and empower them so and develop whatever kind of society that we can develop with the economy and so forth and we are in a

religious school the natural strength of the society can come out and people had not allowed to use cell phones at all. and they had had their first cell phones. and after we were there they lowered the price from $5000 to $5. >> if i didn't chime in on the military side of it, we would interview a group that had been on the process of researching this book and we don't need a

new technology developed but for the cycles to change that we can bring this to keep track of where colleagues are they had this tablet attached and this lasted an hour and a half in the second issue is we talk about the military-industrial complex and we have a real challenge in the sense that cybersecurity is not achieved without agility.

what are we going to get to a point when providing cyberassistance to countries that are being attacked by countries that are not just a physical neighbors but advocates, this is critical. >> so what should we do about upcoming? >> they are trying to organize against western targets. is there a military strategy there, i don't know, but that needs to be in the conversation. >> is interesting is what the russians you have this one fighter problem and 15,000 that are coming in the civil war in syria in one side or the other. in the third upcoming from this as well. so it really is a global problem and they are sending this and

sending software engineers to come fight on behalf of ovitz. electronic army. sometimes they are fighting from this as well. >> presumably from iran? >> just. >> so kudos to the economy. one of the things that happens with the advent of this technology and efficiency is a real crisis over the world particularly for the youth. and we want to have that and i know you travel probably about the impact and technology has on jobs and we are speaking for the

last decade or so and it's that are documented and mainly they are done in this area. and it turned out to be such a category. they are actually investing in the head of hiring. the people who win tend to beat the incumbent in the middle aged and they tend to be the elites.

if you model about going for coming have a significant problem and there are economists to believe that we don't have a jobless problem. but it's a transfer of middle-class high-paying jobs to service jobs. when we think of this as the uber driver and a talented person that is working a normal job and now they have contingent employment which is a service job in plenty of examples of that. most economic thought says that jobs will be less predictable especially for young people in more contingent in this way. there's a separate set of public policy issues around not and we have effectively wars and in

talking this is something i have been working on it is the to fighting problem and it's our problem too. you have to fix this but you have to have more educated workforce and we gave a very similar speech. i know that mark agrees with me on these things. especially focusing on immigration because we try to replace this bid because they tend to form companies to allow

immigration and another one is connectivity to build global brands. we are incumbent can't block new entrants. especially where the regulators won't kill him. so was not kind of obvious? most industries are highly regulated without passing judgment and a lot of these regulations tend to favor the incumbents or the structural incumbents. you have to fix that. i'm sure that elicited his debut is part of it. >> i think that there is no doubt.

and so here you are and imagine that we are the equivalent and having a conversation about china and 20 her spirit looking at this, and we look at the automation trends and we realize that a couple hundred million people's jobs are in these manufacturing sites are going to be replaced i robot. >> there also benefits and i am going to read one of my favorite passages. there will be no alarm clock in your wake-up routine, not in the traditional sense. instead, listen to this. we will be roused by the aroma of freshly brewed coffee with light entering your room's curtains open automatically. it's my favorite part. and by a gentle back massage and

inside your mattress there is a sensor that monitors your weeping rhythms, determining precisely part of this. so your apartment is an electronic orchestra and you are the conductor. and et cetera. so i need this. all of this.

and i feel quite confident. >> so is google working on this? it seems like we will have several together. >> her daughter said that we intend to that scenario. >> it's available in every form of analysis today. you can have a cycle of sleep, the book goes on to describe talking to the equivalent of the law and it does not come you

don't. the reason is with your permission and has been figured out that your bosses would begin, no one is going to call you, will use that service. yes, you bet. >> all those years i worked for you, someone could have told me. so how realistic are some of these changes in a. >> certainly the physical things. the timing and so forth are real. and i'm happy to say that i think facebook is working on similar areas and google is getting to work very well. and it says things like how long it will take you to get to work and how is the traffic going.

and so this is also part of. >> another example and we have this is the optimal traffic routing. it's example after temple of human intelligence crowds were as applied to some kind of physical map or infrastructure that helps to make your life better. the kinds of things will seem pretty straightforward in one form or another. and toured was one month ago,

three weeks ago. little bit more than a month. and you both say that parents are going to have the privacy and security talked even before the lexmark talk with their kids. >> yes, i'm going to. >> okay, you are going to. and obviously this is further in your path. >> he hasn't quite filtered out who runs the household. but the key question is, are you the kind of parent we want your baby to really stand out in the book we talk about this. so here she shows up for the search results. [laughter] >> if you're one of the people to get along, you're given the

generic name. so if you know if you're going to be a standout or not. >> is up on the couch that night. >> but why don't you like this? >> it's a top result. [laughter] >> at the german name. >> [inaudible] >> at the dealbreaker name. >> she is slowly coming around. spirit she is not at all. she's being nice. so let me give you an example of this. and let me also give a more serious threat to this.

what are the things as we are going to create an e-mail address for our daughter. and hand over her password. >> she's behind, before she starts. >> she's ambitious, she will catch up. so there is a sort of interesting and more serious aspect to this. >> i think he's very serious. >> i also had the idea that i don't really want unsupervised parties at our apartment.

and eric told me that i will be like the losing father of the year. >> they are not going to come to your house. >> no, they are not. but there is a serious aspect it's about your child posing things that could hurt your chance of getting a job. saudi arabia is out. you talk to the appearance and their nightmare scenario is their daughter is 10 years old was chatting with someone of the opposite sentencing things that maybe she should not create the because she's tender soul, it's not an issue. but what happens when the exit she said which live in data permanents follow her around like a digital scarlet letter till someone chooses to take it

upon this what the contents. there's a concern with data permanents that reputational damage might be the virtual version of this. >> on identity, on your reputation. >> we argue that it will become the all important and that people will obsess about these kinds of questions. and here it likes to say that it never quite catches with physical maturity which is never quite as good as a mature adult as teenagers and we all understand that. so imagine a 16 or 17-year-old antics in the same person is looking for a job and is it being used against the candidates are not absolute. so does that seem right to you? it doesn't seem right to me and

in our system for hundreds of years it has been true that if you are below 18 and you commit a crime that is within some balance you can actually go to a judge and have the record be removed from the court until you were never convicted of a crime and it is obviously impossible today given the online world. is that fair? i'm not so sure. >> the last question i will ask, and an important one to me. another we will take questions from audiences. it is on women. obviously something that i am deeply compassionate about. i think the benefits of technology don't equally encourage men and women today. women are nearly 25% less likely to be online and part of that is due to not having the capital that men have to buy technology

and part of it is due to the education. women are much more likely to be illiterate because periods are putting their boys in schools and less able to use technology. a report was put out, if reasons were given for 6 million women, it will not have is the same rate as men, the gdp would raise i 13 or 18 million. we know that investments pay off for the economy and we know that it is for the children and their help in their own education. so it's a very good cycle. but we are caught in a non-virtuous cycle and always, including technology. so how do you think this changes and how do we make sure people understand that this technology has to equally be in the hands of women.

>> civic activism come you can talk about any issue in the entire world. it's a women's issue by virtue and what i would say is that i think that can make this in a way that stronger and so there is an observation that i have made and many of my friends i've made which is when women in the middle east could chance of school they outperform the men accidentally.

a friend of mine told me something very interesting and may or may not be true. she's of the problem we have in way right now is we need more women's empowerment. if we gain this out now that women are going to school, 80% of the men. >> about 10 years ago you talked about micro-lending. >> it's not too hard to see. if you just figure out a way and by the way the prices on the low

price on an android phone in china is about $100 or these are powerful smartphones and these are more or less correlated. so you can imagine is within three to five years which are price points within the situation people can use of smart phones. imagine that it's loaded with information and in a small number of years by giving you this, solving the educational problem with childhood iq and so forth. talking to women about taking care of their kids, helping them do all of that. you can have a huge change. including hundreds of millions of people that are empowered. and i just can't imagine.

>> so connecting. if we have the best achievement and so forth. we've visited one of these individuals. >> there's a story that i can't resist telling and we met a group of women who have been attacked by the taliban. without being ridiculed and etc. we are talking and asking them how we were able to be optimistic. one of them smiles and they all live in this house together and they are training in various technical skills and learning

how to do this online. one woman said to us that she loves the internet because online her scars are invisible to the so the internet is giving her a second chance at life or if you think that's amazing, this woman then midiman online for she started chatting with will eventually she met with real-life and now they are married. and i can't think of a group of women who are more disenfranchised and deleted in vietnam than victims. >> we are we're going to now take questions. yes? >> okay, how will issues related to net neutrality affect easy and quick access? what are some proposed solutions?

>> in the developing world, most of the telecoms are still near monopoly providers. you're not going to get really good access until you have competition in those things and it costs more than it does in the united states and if you divide that by the gdp. >> yes. >> the bigger problem, i think that we can solve the small farm problem because it is a consumer product and an even bigger problem is going to be given the quality bandwidth of these countries. >> you do not have common carrier laws apply. a combination of public dresher said the internet is not used to favor a content. and it remains the same if you

only have one provider and you don't have another choice, that would be an example of not having announced competition. >> can you comment on digital currencies and the effect on economies. >> he was just about to buy some. >> the big defenders are saying if one bank that holds dollars goes out of business, it's not the dollars but the one bank might call the federal reserve. >> i am well aware of that. >> 6%.

>> so i think the questions revolve around if it is here to stay. -stay.econd question is howhow and the second question is how long will unregulated currencies last. >> she actually works and is the expert on this. >> when is the u.s. going to step in and regulate this? >> i don't know. there is a good article and i forget who wrote it. and they explained bitcoins as apple's preview gimme whatever for the apple and now i own the apple and the story was written before this weekend last weekend >> i think you study the depression and it's incredibly

useful for many applications. >> there is a question of how secure this crypto currency is. but it's the digital wallets that support this system and it's a whole other problem. and the canadians tried their hand at something called this which was pegged at to this. and that ultimately shut it down because these are part of it. if they aren't secure to support this currency ecosystem, we are

just missing this challenge. and i was shocked at the number -- the kinds of attacks that they faced. especially from a lot of non-us countries. there's an awful lot of people trying to break into them and i think that that will be permanent no matter what. >> how do you see human interaction involving a world that is increasingly automated. it seems the more connected we become the more distantly become living in the physical world. it's interesting because this is something you wrote about in your book. in your book you wrote that there are two worlds at once. a virtual world where we experience a connectivity and a physical world are we still have to contend with geography and the good and bad sides of human nature and the book explores the way of the virtual world and the physical world interacting. what you said in this

questioning is how do you see one impact or the other. >> i'm working on turning off my phone during dinner. >> hours are going? >> you're never going to do it. what percentage are you doing? >> after five minutes of not having devices, i thought i saw this bug is starting to twitch and this is a medical problem. >> the good news is that we have the amazing interactive law.

and so it is important to know where the off button is and know how to turn it off or even working on dinner. and i think the deeper part is what is it doing. >> especially with the your daughter. >> yes, especially with her. >> because traditional record will be enough. >> she will be 10,000 e-mails behind. >> sometimes he'd decided it's not okay to post sonograms before birth. >> a birth, he laughed, a smile. but the point is what this means

is we will hold up, saying can i post this picture of io. >> she might say yes. >> good luck. >> parenting is quite different than what you think it will be and there's nothing better than talking to someone who doesn't have kids yet. this is how it's all going to work or it smacked his first response was resist the urge to think they do the first-person on earth, don't think you're the first one are to have a child. and so we will be better known than people interacting with us and what it means is the implications of what we do online are probably a greater consequence in determining our identity. >> the way i think about this as you start off and you have complete control of your

identity and as you age the percentage decreases. so by the time your daughter, think about the percentage and so forth in the description of her and all the things that would have been compared to who she really is. and we haven't figured this out yet. >> it's not just what we say, it's what others say and post about us. so we basically are one unit in an entourage of people who shaping who we are. >> is interesting. and that brings up another thing i know that we are all working on, which is how we think about the responsibilities that companies have for privacy and security for the google and facebook and everything we do and also the increasingly american element. and you know this better than anyone where the countries are increasingly having voice or data localization for what has

been a global system for the control of data, which i think ties to the identity of their citizens. it tries to some of the identity you have in the book. >> we have $12 on amazon. >> easily. multiple times. each carry around. >> thank you. >> notice the cover that i had done.

>> the revelation that a number our relations with a bunch of countries. >> yes, they did. >> cheryl and i have spent lots of time dealing with the consequences and the perception of nsa activities and so forth. so this is a good example of what will happen in the future. no one knows how to solve this problem and an example is a couple of weeks ago. angela merkel indicated she would be in favor of having data localization within germany, which sounds like a great political thing but it breaks the internet and is a very bad idea for the german citizens and we are facing similar situations around the world in brazil for both companies and so forth. i don't think we have figured out all of the consequences of that in the government cents.

>> there is a lack of the women being situated in computer science. in the 1980s when we were getting 30% to 35% of the american computer science degrees, were down to 13%. we believe that this is important, if you understand that technology jobs are important to future employment and they are better paid, you have to worry about polity and there's lots worry about with women not being in computer science. google to eric's credit and others credit.

absolutely forerunner of this. refocus on women in computer science and routing. when we have 13%, it's very hard to get women through it. so how do you think about this for google and in terms of encouragement over the world? >> you can understand it is an escalation that people follow. that women get off that escalator at various points and we need to address that. this is a real national crisis for america. and there are plenty of fields where we have figured this out. includes biology where the majority of scientists are limited. so it's possible to do this.

>> two years ago in silicone valley. you don't notice it always, but eric does. you're pretty much deciding what your kids are doing for the summer. and it is encouragement that we

have to be part of. it's the impact of the future they can't really be part of this. how are you going to keep up for your daughter? >> well, -- >> four weeks from now when you have a daughter. >> my view is to start early. you hear about goldilocks and others that people are working to try to figure out how are there ways to create opportunities for young girls to get excited and there's clearly not enough examples of this and you can't wait until your child gets to college and is deciding this. if you don't start earlier than lose that investment. >> there may be a solution knocker argot work, but as we accept the stereotype. the opportunities for the kinds

of things that it appears that women care a lot about to build massive new companies that are clearly going to be there. so it's possible that we will solve this problem by just moving up. when i started there were no petitions at all and nothing was visual and there was no interaction and it was very dirty, speaking as a local nerd. >> other women with other technical skills as well.

one of the google idea of goals, it was to end censorship. we are going to end censorship. ..

>> and the second has to do with trust you don't know the origin of a particular proxy or tool. so we decided to leverage the engineers inside and outside the company are there tools we can build to help address critical problems? and other means to the filtering challenge of the repressive regime and we are well underway. >> it is fair to say the life of autocratic dictators will get worse because of the apartment. >> it is great but sloping

down. >> and what's good while you had it. >> we always had geopolitical problems the empowerment of the individual was a new problem for them. they cannot shut the internet down. we talk about this. that the citizens would be empowered. the china, as you know, has been dusted one form or another over a long time. there are new services in china with the two most popular examples of a link schaede with a series of messages but it could be very large. by the way you could do pictures and so forth it is heavily censored. so what happens when you have a clever idea and every person in this room since it

to all the friends and 10 million people think this is a great idea? even with the repressive regime you have got to fear the results of the power of your citizens. >> there is time for one last question. >> what are you most pessimistic and what makes you the most optimistic? in terms of the future? >> the thing that i am most pessimistic about what we've talked about before, we like to think technology is a silver bullet but there are still mass killings in huge porsche's living in abject poverty and i wish the technology could visibly solve those challenges with

more connectivity does not solve the problems that there are limits. >> in some respects it could exacerbate but the thing that i am most optimistic about is basically we will experience the mobile psittacine even thinking about china as the most populous repressive society 1 billion people will come on line one time in one country and will never happen again. imagine how to know that ability to know what is happening in this city to have access to the world's information with the opportunity to make decisions is game changing. there are challenges but the notion they will be more empowered with choices and options at any other time in history has to be a good

benefit. >> wed restarted the book we did not know how we would use the developing world's having worked on this three years we're optimistic about the overall benefits especially the developing world. there are two areas i am worried about. the first it is a race to we demilitarized there are a number of possible scenarios. and it we don't understand we have to think about that. the second one steve jobs

question in the race between computers and humans. [laughter] the cubans have to win. [laughter] -- the schuman's. [laughter] >> the reason the humans have to win is they have too shy and in the human system has to be updated. this is not happening fast enough. the second one half arguing how we would politically and culturally solve this. please join me to think these great minds the underwriters.

[applause] >> thank you so much. >> this has been the best venue in various formats it is such a great institution the legacy will last far longer. [applause] >> i appreciate that. thank you so much. cynic at eric schmidt and jared cohen has been interviewed many times but i think we had a great moderator today. i hope you enjoyed.

[applause] the book goes on sale paperback tomorrow with a completely different after word does he think about these issues provide holders take advantage of that.