because we're introducing now advanced analytics, algorithms, artificial intelligence, robotics across the system, and we are just eliminating. i predicted that would happen in a book called the end of work in '95, controversial at the time but i notice they say he got that spot on in terms of the trend line. so obvious. it just needed to be said. we have now virtual retail eliminating a lot of the sales force. we have white-collar and service industry being wiped out by technology displacement is played now than knowledge workers are at risk. we don't need the lawyers, accountants, radiologists. we have analytics that can do the job quicker and cheaper. we are headed toward near zero marginal cost marginal cost labor. driverless vehicles will be on the road which will replace hundreds of thousands of truck drivers and bus drivers.

it is not 20 years away. 5-10 years. already being tested in california. the question is, if we are headed toward near zero marginal cost labor what does it say about the prediction? what do we do? how do we define the human journey? our people employed in this collaborative, and, in a zero marginal cost society? in the short run i think there is a silver lining. i think that we have a 30-year and tear -- interim where we will have to a bill that the internet of things. that is going to be labor-intensive. we have to convert our entire energy use from fossil fuel and nuclear to renewable energy. that will require millions of jobs, thousands of new businesses. we have to transform the buildings in the world to your power plant said they can generate screen actors in the near building and it becomes our power plants. we're doing that now. we have to store all of that energy. that requires millions of

jobs. we have to put in an energy internet, transform the entire electricity grid of the world. imagine that. it distributive energy internet. a 30-year billed out, a lot of jobs. finally we have to put in an automated transport and logistics great. over the next 40 years we have two generations who can build the environment to lay out. but as of this comes in, it is smart, intelligent, can program itself with the small supervisory work force. we have to ask, what do we do that? much of the employment already is now quickly migrating from the marketplace to the collaborative commons, the social economy. and that is because in the social economy it is social requires humans to engage with humans and machines. the last 15 years, the employment of the social commons, the not-for-profit sector has gone up. employment in the traditional marketplace down

as technology has displaced workers. this is the way it was outlined. more people are migrating to these expensive types of jobs creating social capital which is a much higher calling than simply attending to a machine. my suspicion, to around this off, is that by 2015 if this is not derailed -- van de think it up set this whole development, in 2015 our grandchildren might look back and be repulsed by the idea that their grandparents 1248, nine, ten hours a day producing goods and services because they're going to be living in a more automated world where the machines do that work, and they will see that loss of human value in the 20th century, mass labor with the same repulse and we see slavery and serfdom before the industrialization. these and people will be growing up in an automated

world where they can get on with the more transcendent aspect of life creating social capital and the collaborative common. maybe the most poignant forecast even though it is the least thought of at the time. >> host: on the other hand you could be describing a world in which there are all being asked to build our own coffins and dig around graves in the process of laying to waste the very sorts of activities from which we derive social cohesion, a sense of accomplishment, a sense of value in the world and a sense of being able to care for our progeny. so many positive values embodied in the ethic of hard work and the ethic of working as part of the team in the ethic of being part of building something. a great whether commercial or non-commercial. to anyone who is watching who has just been rendered unemployed by this prediction, you know, why should we invite this? after all, we can choose our

policies, leaders, and the products that we buy. why should we put the brakes on? >> the economists have always believed that the most efficient economy is where you sell your product at marginal cost. they just never thought marginal cost would be zero and therefore no more profit so what i am saying, this is too sweet a deal for the human race to turn down. if we can produce sustainable abundance at near zero marginal cost, not for everyone, but our wide range of information grid, energy, product, why not? it is the most sustainable economy. right now we are addressing climate change. the u.n. panel came out with a grim story. they don't want to put benchmarks to move to renewable energy economy, and we are stalled. what we need to realize -- and this is what i said in the book, zero marginal cost is the most efficient, sustainable framework that you can have for an economy because it means that we are

producing the minimum input of materials, energy, labor, that we can produce with the minimum use of our stuff. for example, if you are taking 15 cars off the road that is a reduction in co2 emissions and a huge amount of material. millions of people are sharing that means instead of buying more close which emits a lot of global warming gases more people are sharing a few were close or of people are out here sharing they're existing domiciles rather than building new hotels, that is that reduction in the emission of co2 and less resources. the perfectly sustainable economy is a zero marshalled cost society. in terms of incentive the economists have argued up until now that you will lose incentives. they're is a generation that does not believe that. they're calling themselves social launched a nurse. business schools around the world of producing new

generations to use their creativity camacho barrell skills to advance collaborative networks because the primary goal is not market capital but social capital. and they are actually becoming as creative and entrepreneurial as we saw in the marketplace in the 20th century. look at how many people have really created software, new forms of entertainment, videos on youtube, new kinds of news blocks. goes on and on, and they have done it with a creative thrust as significant as we saw in the marketplace but it is no social entrepreneurs on a collaborative, and through non-profit. it does not end. it just changes the economic framework in which incentive is created. >> host: it sounds like the winners under the society are those who are technologically adept, highly educated, cosmopolitan and outlook because they have the ability to collaborate across great distances and perhaps even across languages. is this a recipe for further concentration of wealth and

power and income inequality over time? >> you just threw me a soft ball. >> good. >> actually, it is the exact opposite. the reason a lot of traditional global companies are little bit worried to say the least, this is the democratization of economy. this allows millions of us to democratize communication, which we have. if i said to you in 1989 at 24 years later before the world wide web 40% would be producing their own news, making it available to each other at near zero marginal cost at the speed of light, what would you have said? that is the democratization of communication. they have to suffer the consequences of the democratization of communication. what i am saying is if remove from the internet to the more expensive internet of things we have millions of people producing and

sharing their own claim renewable energy on micrograms by passing the big power and utility companies. hundreds of thousands of young people producing their own 3-d printed products by passing big companies. the real losers here are the vertically integrated global corporations of the 20th century. and i say in "the zero marginal cost society," the best that we could do given the circumstances. centralized energy, communications, forcing us to create a vertically integrated corporation is that put everything under one roof, supply and distribution to create cheaper product. now the internet assam's because it is lateral that allows millions of smaller players, social entrepreneurs and prosumers to come together directly and eliminate the middleman of the big vertical company and democratize. it will have its biggest impact on the developing world. we are starting to see that in india and parts of africa

and china and asia. >> host: over the san 24 years we have seen a remarkable increase in income inequality, especially in this country, most acutely in this country but also to a degree in western europe. and we have seen that we could say that if we look ahead three or four years that wild west democratization experiment that we have seen with the internet could very well be over, neutrality is for the most part over which means they're no longer is a level playing field for communication in the united states, although europe just cited to adopted, and we certainly have nothing like an open internet in turkey or india or china or many other places in the world. so one could say that we just experimented with that democratization. nonetheless, over this time as we have seen their shift in resources to the financial sector, more and more of our potentially productive resources are now in financial games and much more of it is invested in

upper information activities we have also seen an evacuation of robust middle-class. why should we believe it would get better anytime soon? >> i'm familiar with your work. you have done a lot in this area. there is no guarantee here. i have outlined the possibility of a new economic system operating years zero marginal cost that could democratize life around the burro and create a more sustainable planet where we use resources and a much more just and humane white. that is what we could go to. on the other hand, i think we have a problem, entrenched interest from that industrial revolution of the 20th century, telecom, a cable company, power and utility company trying to force this process network fidelity is critical. you know, the whole framework for the internet is based on network

neutrality. they created the world wide web to be network neutral so that anyone could pay a service provider a small amount of money and be treated like anyone else. you were not put at the indoor beginning of the line not discriminated in terms of price, data not used against your interest, networked neutrality. that is what made it successful. now that a lot of the traditional brick and mortar industries are seeing that we are moving from the communication internet to the more expensive internet of things communication antennas, energy internet, logistics' internet they're starting to say, wait a minute, we are not sure about network into reality because if our industry ghost town near zero marginal cost at cost and there is no more profit we are out of business. in january the court of appeals issued judgments in the federal communications commission, their protocol on a number of the trolley was null and void because it

was not under mandate. now the federal communication commission is stuck with how to mandate on network into reality. the telekom and cable companies are saying, we created the pipes. we are using our pipes. if we want to charge different prices, hold back some customers, but some at the front of the line if we have special business relationships we may want to control some of the data to use with third parties, advertising, and it is not just the table -- cable and telecom. now we have to be concerned about and tennant. our favorites. google, facebook, twitter, amazon. i use all of them. i am a big fan of google. abcaeight to every day. it gives me the knowledge of the world, but we are beginning to see that the internet companies which helped create the social, that potentially can get as in to the zero marginal cost, they are now starting to look at ways like the new global monopoly. starting to look like social utilities. meaning, if you have to go

to google for all of your knowledge, that is like a monopoly. google controls about two-thirds of the research engine market in the u.s. and maybe 90 percent engine traffic in europe. and 6 billion a day. we have 50 billion in revenue last year. facebook, one out of -- almost one out of every 61 beings on this planet is on facebook. .. we are going to have to find a way that we can get the best out of these internet companies that

make sure it allows us to democratize the economy head to near zero marginal cost. it's going to be a big struggle. >> host: you describe three internets. we have had a really good ride with it. and as we have discussed it may be over for that. there's a concentration of power involved with the internet and certainly network neutrality seems dead in the water in the united states and much of the world anyway. >> i should say europe is dealing with it aggressively. >> that's 11 of the more adjusting takeaways from the book is the extent to which europe is making policy decisions in the united states is not. china is making a different set of policy decisions in each of these informed by politics can yield very different results in terms of various issues you describe. the other two internet of things, how do we know, the internet of things and energy internet that you have described and you see the early stirrings

that may be the sprouts of these gardens coming. how can we know that those two won't be corrupted, privatize, leveraged and radically controlled either by oligarchic commercial interests or oppressive states because we have seen both of those things happen with the first internet. >> guest: we have history and i advise the european union and have for a long time. i was privileged to be a principle architect of their industrial revolution plan which moves the things forward. it's endorsed by the european parliament and member states and i have also advised chancellor merkel in germany where they are pushing this forward. we have some history in germany. in germany the big power utility companies like eon and emb w. global companies huge power they were decimated in less than six years when millions of small

players that produce their own solar and wind energy. over 25% of electricity now in germany is solar and wind and that's in seven years and we are heading to 35% clean electricity by 2020 and guess who's producing a? it's millions of small players. the big power companies are producing less than 7% to the new energies and last week more directors at eon said we can't compete with a zero marginal cost. what happened is once millions of small players come together to produce their own energy it wipes out centralized power so we have that history. however as you said there may be countries that may try to thwart this because they want to keep an oligarchic control over energy but europe at least which is the largest economy in terms of gdp and still larger than the u.s. and lisa's setting a framework and now i am reasonably hopeful about china. premier, a new premier read my

last book and instruct the federal government to move on energy internet and that 80 billion dollar four year commitment means billions of chinese people will produce electricity at zero marginal cost. the u.s. and canada are the outliers on that. they are stuck in the 20 century with tar sands in canada showed us in the u.s. and woefully behind is the transition to a collaborative commons in the zero marginal cost society. >> host: you also said the united states right now the koch brothers pushing lawson states to put fees and taxes on solar panels. in addition in virginia where i live the previous governor in the previous legislature introduced a special excise tax on alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles using the argument above cases using the argument that people who answer to these other energy forms in their lives are free riding on the system.

if you are not paying gasoline taxes in virginia you are free riding on the highways was argument behind it. the current legislature has repeal that tax on hybrids but you have in this country tremendous political opposition to so much of what you have outlined here and in europe it fascinates me that you raise the influence of president merkel in germany. she is hooked up to the internet and it turns out her cell phone was being monitored by u.s. intelligence for many years. under that condition isn't there significant, a significant challenge in terms of the values we choose and the policies we choose to create a set of systems that can fulfill our hopes? in other words, your predictions might not be so simply achieved

given us. >> guest: i agree with you. look what i've outlined here is the possibilities we see a trend, we see the projections. it's not epidemic. however it could be stalled, it could be derailed. there are so many that would not like to see the democratization of the economy. let me also say the capital system isn't going to disappear. you know i taught the advanced management program at the wharton school for a long time and i'm a believer in the market that the market will play a streamlined role. it will become more aggregated. it will be a partner of this but it won't be the primary partner within a collaborative commons. but there are a lot of interests of foot. you mentioned the u.s.. people ask me me why zizo behind this third industrial revolution and the shift to the zero margin shifts society. while the big energy companies

and other special interest can help finance the elections. they provide the money to the candidates. in europe we have public financing of elections so while the companies at the in brussels they can't write the legislation because they have to divide with other groups. the region's national governments and ngos etc. so until we have dealt that though this whole question of companies buying electricity in the u.s. the u.s. is going to continue to fall further behind. may come up with new ideas but if you are in an old energy system and an old centralized economy based on a vertically integrated companies as possible the u.s. and canada will be second-tier countries 20 or 30 years from now. in europe we are wrestling with these issues on power. we told the power utility companies they have to uncouple. they camped on the distribution because it has to act like an internet allowing everybody equal access. in europe we are now having a huge discussion about data security and protecting people's privacy. we all want this internet of

things that we created more collaborative world but we want to make sure data isn't used by third parties against our interests so we are beginning to develop detailed protocols to make sure that privacy is secure. that's not happening here. >> host: so there are two previous predictions that i would like to ask you about. one from the 1950s and one from the 1960s. in the 1950s this country and many other countries around the world invested a tremendous amount of money and nuclear energy. the idea being in the rhetoric at the time sounds very familiar to what you are outlining in the idea being by the year 2000 electricity would be effectively free, marginally free. we would sink millions or billions of dollars into these plans. we would solve the technological problems along the way and solve the political problems because we had a few decades to do that but ultimately energy would be able to flow into peoples houses throughout the world including the developing world and a marginal cost of zero. the second one is the green

revolution of the 1960s. this one we actually found through biotechnology of various sorts and new ways of cultivating that the price of corn and wheat and soybeans actually has dropped to something close to zero, propped up by massive government subsidies in creating tremendous dislocation of farmers so people flooding northward from mexico because it takes a lot less labor on a farm in mexico to make a bushel of corn. so how do you look at those two examples and say we are not about to invite the same deferred dreams? >> guest: in terms of nuclear power they said it would be power too cheap to meter but we now know renewable energy is near zero marginal cost. in other words we now know in europe there are millions and millions of players, homeowners consumer cooperatives rural

electricity cooperative small businesses and large businesses that are producing green electricity at near zero marginal cost. they are already there so that issues off the table. we knew it was delivered to millions and billions of people right now. near zero marginal cost of electricity. the food issue is interesting you might know that i fought monsanto and the life science companies around intellectual property controlling seeds. we now have a generation of genetically modified seeds in the actual seeds are patented so they are controlled and owned by a handful of large life science companies and we have no record to show the yields have been dramatically increase. on the contrary we have every evidence of small farmers now have available other types of seeds and they can afford to lease out the seeds that are owned as intellectual property by the life science companies.

there is an example where an agriculture we have to turn it around. we need to move toward more organic and ecologically sustained agriculture land reform and allow people to begin to shift their food production from fertilizers and pesticides to more organic treatment. it's a big jump. in europe we are doing it and in parts of asia they are moving towards a more agriculturally sustainable system. we are not doing it in the u.s. in any major way. >> host: one of the sections of this book makes a small concession to the idea of near zero marginal cost. i was struck by it because when i think about my internet use i never believe that what i use is free. i've pay, hundreds of dollars per month and i've pay at&t hundreds of dollars per month and i pay any number of other companies for the devices in the software to interact with this flow of data. nothing about the internet is free.

now some of those are subject to cause that every month i write a check to comcast. >> guest: as you know over time i mention in the book i say near zero. i spent a lot of the early sections of the "the zero marginal cost society" the book on the causes us to pay, internet communication, the energy cost the access cost the infrastructure cost but what i'm saying is we are heading towards near zero marginal cost. we already know in certain areas we have done that. what is the cost to you and i to put an idea up on the internet and make it available to 40% of the human race. not much. service provider and cell phone fixed costs and that's about it. assessing the book we will head toward more near zero marginal cost. what has happened now is the reason prices are still high on these vertically integrated corporations there are so many middlemen in the process they keep marking up the transaction cost and by the time he gets to

the final end user we are paying more than we should more than the production and distribution of product would warrant. that's why zero marginal cost is the ultimate test of the decent sustainable just society. if people want a metric to measure how you created just and sustainable world is how you head towards near zero marginal cost and not gdp. that allows us to share goods and services at the cost of production which should head toward zero. people have also said to me if you have abundance will that create even more use of resources and the worse for the planet? probably not. the reason we have so much overconsumption and overindulgence is because of fear and scarcity. market capitalism is based on scarcity so we all have to get hours and make sure the other doesn't get theirs, mine versus pine and we are always in the struggle toward against a rainy day because tomorrow may bring bad news. in a society where most people's

basic energy, basic goods and services are provided, not all of them but the basic goods and services there will be less fear of scarcity, less need to hoard of things available in a sustainable way and they do have some control over the process. also the status differentiations in a world where many things are free there's not much that is left between having the haves and the have-nots because everything is readily available. i suspect it changes the psyche from scarcity which creates the idea of overconsumption to a sustainable abundance which gives us the idea that we have what we need and we don't need to do more than that. >> host: one area that is consistently a release in the near future up to scarcity is real estate. if you look at silicon valley where many of these ideas flow freely and you look at san francisco where many examples flow freely there is a massive civil war breaking out over the high cost of the basic apartment

in the area. so in that situation you have rich people getting richer on the information economy, rich people getting richer, educated people getting richer on the various elements that would feed into the zero marginal cost society and then the people who work in the delis and the liquor stores and at the hotels are unable to rent a decent place anywhere near their work. police officers, firefighters and teachers as well. so at that point there are certain things that cannot be zero marginal cost. how do we deal with that? >> guest: we always assume there's no way to move an economy unless there's a profit incentive. without a profit incentive how can you move the economy therefore the collaborative economy doesn't make sense. how would people produce and share things for free? wake-up call. billions of people are doing it today.

it's called cooperatives. we don't tend to recognize this in the u.s. but literally billions of people are involved in food cooperatives, electricity cooperatives banking cooperatives housing cooperatives, all sorts of cooperatives that are not based on a profit motive. they pool their n. shared resources on the commons. this cooperative is a comment and there's no direct profit. for example in the united states when you go to the grocery store a lot of the food you get is coming from agricultural cooperatives and invest part of u.s. electricity comes from rural electricity cooperatives. they provide 70% of electricity. it's not a profit-based system. it's wildly successful. in new york we have housing cooperatives. in europe and asia and around the world more people bank in banking co-ops and commercial banks and their big players. they're not small players. again we are so blinded to the idea there's only the capitalist market that we don't see around

us is other reality cooperatives and nonprofit organizations that are common to let me say one last thing. economists will say the social commons is a parasite. it relies on government grants and entitlements and private philanthropy in order to sustain itself. wrong. a study was done at 40 countries by johns hopkins university civil society centered and what they found is over half the revenue not-for-profit organizations is fees for services rendered. only 3435% comes from government which is less than government gives the industry and only 12% as philanthropy. we have wit with the collaborat, and that's now going to move from the shadows to center stage because the internet of things will allow millions of people to bypass the capitalist market and become consumers and produce and share their own goods and services and eliminate the middleman and directly engage with each other and they will create institutions that are by

far and away beyond the traditional capitalist profit-making institutions there are going to be two systems, capitalist market in the collaborative commons. i suspect the collaborative commons will probably be the dominant economic engine in the capitalist market will still be a strong player but a niche partner. >> host: have cooperatives helped firefighters pay their rent in new york? >> guest: cooperatives have helped out. that's a good thing about cooperatives because they can fix, the cooperatives determine what they are going to be doing with their members. they can fix bills to some extent but i'm not saying the whole world is going to move toward a zero marginal cost society. i'm saying that large parts of the human race are starting to move some of the economic activity onto the internet of things onto the collaborative commons. if nothing else this is the best news in my lifetime. i never thought of my lifetime we would see the emergence of a

new economic system, collaborative commons. so different from the traditional capitalist systems we now have. how we develop it all the challenges involved as we move toward it are quite interesting and there are going to be difficult for sure but the fact that we actually have a new possibility, new economic journey ahead of us a new economic system to look forward to is quite encouraging. getting there is going to be a real test of our will. the rich are getting richer and the poor getting poorer and climate change is spoiling our planet is not a viable alternative so let's move this journey to a zero marginal cost society and move to collaborative commons and create a more just and sustainable society for our kids. >> host: jeremy rifkin author of "the zero marginal cost society" thank you very much for this conversation. >> guest: thank you.

now i'm booktv theresa payton and theodore claypoole talk about the positive and negatives of digital surveillance and discuss what individuals can do to protect their privacy and the privacy of their children. during a book party held at the capitol hill club in washington d.c.. >> are you guys ready? everybody has a glass of wine so you can settle in. perfect, excellent. good evening. i am melissa hathaway and it's my great honor to be here this evening to introduce the authors "privacy in the age of big dat data." who would have thought that when the internet began with his first transmission on october 29, 1969 and be moved forward here today in may of 2014 that each one of us would have at least three to five i.t.

enabled devices on us moving toward 10 to 15 in the next few years. we are at the intersection of the internet of things, security and privacy in the 21st century and these authors have identified what it means to be tracked from our home, through the internet, in our cars and as we move forward. i am so excited to introduce theresa payton and ted claypoole who are going to give us some of the background of the book, some of the case studies and to make us think twice about when one may click connect, search and connect to that internet. what does it mean for our security, our privacy and the age of the internet of things so to reset please. you. >> thank you. [applause] first of all thanks so much everybody for being here because you are either a friend of ted's or a friend of mine or a

colleague or a business partner of some sorts of thank you for giving up time and a evening to be here. even though we made sure we advertise free food and free booze. that having been said you are busy people. let me talk to a little bit about why ted and i wanted to do this book. it's interesting to remember a time before edward snowden which was june, a year ago. remember that time. ted and i were talking about doing our second book, the first but protecting your internet activity and are you on line? the truth is yes. that is for after the show. we go to the publisher and we say we have this great idea in the something we are very concerned about. we want to talk about privacy in the age of the data and its crickets on the other end of the phone at the publisher. the publisher is sweet and we love them. it's her second book with them and they are here with us tonight selling the book.

they said i don't think consumers care about that at all. we are going to have a hard time selling this book. why do you think they're going to care about the book. >> we said we would love to have the tube you think about this but what about something else? >> not this. here are the things we are concerned about site talks through a couple of things and they reluctantly agreed to let us write the book. so we are coming up on our first deadline where everything has to be done and turned in an and the first deadline the boston marathon bombing happens. if you remember there were a lot of crowdsourcing going on in the data to try to figure out who did what and how to apprehend the culprits. they pulled the book back to talk about how big data didn't stop something from happening but it sure helps with the case. we are now wrapping it out and then mr. snowden's revelations come out at of me go back to the publisher and we say we need to

pull the book back again. they said don't you think this is a passing headline? do you really want to delay the book for snowden? i said i think this is going to be big. trust us on this if we release a book and snowden is not in that people will not read it. long story short i was a little bit of the cycle on writing a book that the reason i'm so excited we got the chance to do the project is from a technical perspective i was at the beginning of creating the big data and analytics that the banks know about you. according to the vendor they are trying to make you feel good but according to them one of the largest first comprehensive on line data analytics platform and this was that barnett bank which is part of bank of america and one of the biggest implementations at that time. i was part of doing that and my focus was to help the bank make money and to make sure we can get a larger share of your wallet. and take care of you of course.

that was number one. i left the best for last. it's all about the customer. i have to tell you i did not think once about somebody hacking and stealing that data and knowing everything about you. that doesn't mean i didn't care about security at that point but it was on the mainframe. we had the client/server implementation and i just didn't have to think and worry that much because we had mainframe security. fast-forward, i'm thinking about the data being collected by us and a lot of times we get focused on the government and the government scratches the surface. it's business and they need to do it so they can make money so they can offer you valued products so they can get the next cure for disease, so they can patent the heart to fix that my daughter got a couple of years ago. we need big data and we need all this information but is woefully under protected. when i talked to ted about this book my focus was how do i write a guide for consumers and

businesses with ted's brilliant legal mind to help me understand navigating where the laws lead often where the laws help and how do i write a guide for you whether yo you are a business owner, business executive or a consumer that you can read, be informed, engaged and may be enraged and if you are not enraged at some point in the book i didn't do my job on the pieces. ted did his job. also you can do something about it because you read the headlines and people get paralysis. i wanted to take that paralysis away and i wanted you to feel like you had control. then there are couple of parts where you can't do anything about it except to talk to your elected officials. we also encourage that in the book as well. that is why i am so excited the project actually happened, that you were here and i hope you enjoyed reading the book. ted and i love to talk to people as they are reading the book and i will turn it over to ted for

his remarks on the project. >> ultimately i think one of the things we said what we were doing this was we are going to be positive. neither of us are luddites and none of us think we should get rid of technology. in fact part of every chapter was supposed to be here is why this technology is good, here's where it works for you and here's why it's important to you in here is why people set it up this way. in some cases they set up that way for reasons we may not necessarily like that we explore the good enough batted it. but then hopefully you became enraged in certain places where you say i understand this is good but it doesn't have to be this way. that is ultimately where we are right now is that there is a lot going on right now and more and more is happening is the internet of things becomes real. as you have not just a computer in your pocket, but a computer that is your jacket and those

exist right now and we talk about them in the book. but more and more stationary cameras around in the sensors everywhere and the thing you carry with you will be sending information out about you. so we as people need to make decisions about how much we care about that and how much we are willing to give out and how much we can ask our legislators to say we need to know more here or we need to have some restrictions there. there was a question of not necessarily have to do something but if you think about it and you were worried here are some steps you can take so that was where we were. and we are happy to take any questions and by the way she has allowed her mic and that is why i am standing behind here. >> the other thing too if you are in a hurry and you don't have time to read the book and you keep putting it off because

you are doing other things you can flip through it and we actually have free tools, tips, case studies that we have highlighted a sort of a callout text box. if you don't have time to read the book cover to cover you can flip through and find some of those tips and tools highlighted in the boxes. the stories are interesting. a lot of the stories we did actually interviewed the victims so we actually talked to victims and put the results of the interview with their permission in the book. we also interviewed mr. madeley who developed the showdown tool. the risks of the internet of things we now have refrigerators that talk to the internet to help you with your grocery ord order. for those of you who are german phobic you can flush your toilet using bluetooth from your phone. so this internet of things

understands those chips that make it affordable for you to have it in your house and make it really simple to use our woefully unprotected. it has data about you and your patterns. flashing patterns, food patterns, other patterns. then there's also the cameras as well. >> but yes it is a brave new world now and it's just going to get more and more extreme in that area. the one thing you said that i wanted to point out that our publisher stopped as a one point and said i'm not sure why you were using all these cases that have been in a lawsuit at one point or another. that actually was fairly easy because something that people have to know about us is that we are professional secret keepers. this is what we do for a living and so if anybody is looking to

read what theresa is saying about dishing dirt at the white house, not going to happen. and the same thing with me and my clients a number of whom are creating the internet of things end up in the banking space or others. we don't talk about that but one of the reasons we talk about law cases is because it's protected. there is a lot out there that eventually reach the point where someone has been upset enough to sue about it so there is a lot we cover in there because we can do that and nobody can say we are taking their information. >> you talk about lawsuits and stuff like that and it brings up an idea to me about a whole new area of law and how is that emerging? >> we feel like we need more lawyers? i am kidding.

>> it's interesting because i've been doing this for a long time and i have been doing this since before there were laws in this space so there were some responsibility but in a regular talk i give to businesses right now is whether your data obligations because everybody has them now trade 47 states have passed certain data loss. kentucky just past one this last month to come into the rest of the world. but it's interesting, you have those in california has done things such as almost having a right to erase your past while on social media if you were a teenager. so god forbid any of us would have said things we were embarrassed about when we were a teenager and/or posted them on line. that is where the california legislature is coming from.

>> is a coming from the police? >> a little bit of both but there's a lot coming from the state legislature. our good friends across the street here have been looking at this issue and have 20 or 30 acts in the statutes and the space up there looking at year after year after year but they have not passed them yet. we actually haven't had a broad law in protecting privacy since 1988. we have so had more specific industry specific laws but nothing broader than that and a few things have happened since then. >> just like a few like twitter was launched in the new iphone, facebook took on myspace. google search and google mail. all of that happened since we have enacted these laws so obviously the laws, unless we are incredible fortunetellers didn't really foresee how the internet was going to morph and

change. >> it is changing. it's changing everybody's business because there are things you have to pay attention to and another thing we cover in the book is that most of the rest of the civilized world looks at the u.s. as a banana republic when it comes to privacy, because a lot of plac places, canada, japan most and most of europe and others have an objective right to privacy. we don't have that at all. we deal on a sector specific method would it's very different and if you are doing business were living in some of the rest of the world of privacy laws are much much different. >> we learned that from the first book. we had a few people that weren't us-based read the first book and say not enough for me, for my country and this book so we actually spent quite a bit of time researching iran syria

russia turkey israel, lot of different other countries, u.k. and canada and really trying to understand their views on privacy. what's interesting is they do draw the line there's a little different than how we think about it. so for example in the u.k. they see privacy is a right as it relates to businesses collecting your data. but they have no problem snapping your picture everywhere you go in the u.k.. they are some of the most photographed citizens in the world so it's interesting to see that. if you are getting ready to live or your children are getting way are getting ready to look another country or do business in another country you'll definitely want to go to the book and look for some of the different differences between america from our point of view and those countries and their point of view on privacy. >> we thought it made it richer to explore what the whole world is doing and this and that in contrast and compare it to what we have. >> is a possible globally to

wipe out all your social media or anything that has been on mine? >> is a possible? probably not. for years the french, seriously the french have talked about a right to be forgotten and they passed into law at one point but have been unable to enact it. but if you go back to the first there are some things you can do to help clean up some of what you have on line and the social media companies will help you to a certain extent with that and other companies that are putting information out that you may or may not help with that. >> to reintroduce it. >> now, here's the most important part of and from a practical standpoint i don't remember all the numbers that was something like 60% of people don't ever go past the first

search page and over 90% or 95% or 98% don't go past the third search page. so if you can't get rid of it you can at least bury it. >> not that anyone here has anything to bury that your loved ones might. >> someone truly but evaded might find that kind of thing but the truth is most people wouldn't. >> including h.r. and academic review boards and things like that. >> future potential mothers-in-law. >> always then it's another thing when i talk to groups about this. i give a lot of social media ethics talks and one of my big slides is simply don't be stup stupid. you know there's a lot of thinking and think before you write because you are

publishing. this is a publication. it's going out there and maybe you can pull it back and maybe not but you can't count on that. just because you pull up that doesn't mean somebody else didn't say and once again across the street the library of congress is keeping all public tweets. >> that's it there is and a glitch and they get the private tweets too. >> which may well happen. >> do you think they are so dependent but not savvy about where it goes? they truly believe in passwords that only their friends see things. >> they do and they don't realize there's a data warehouse behind the scenes. guess on the front side on the web site that's all you see and when you delete its gone for you but it's still back. it's like people learned the hard way with snapchat. the thing expires after so many seconds. kind of, to you. i always say to people the only

time to lead us forever is when your device crashes and you want to recover the data. that's the only time delete is forever but everything else, no it's not forever. [inaudible] >> one of the nice things about worse and working with theresa on these books if she has a very deep and really thoughtful knowledge of the way children use the internet and how to be careful about that. one of the things she has taught me, and i now steal mercilessly. >> i can't wait to hear what it is. >> it's one of the point to a snake which is when a teenager thinks about privacy, their own privacy who do you think they want to be private from? you. and other people they don't think about of it all. it's just they want to be private with regard to their parents.

and i don't care if anybody else in the world knows that in many cases. so the's a lot to think about when you have kids and that's one of the things that theresa has been great about. she speaks to children's groups a lot and that's one of the things about the book is parents should really be looking at it if you have kids in this space and if you are thinking about it and how you might monitor and work with them. >> one of the things too a lot of you here in the business community and one of the things i would love to have you take away and ted and i have talked about this a lot is everything is hackable. everything so i know you mean well when you are collecting data about your customers but just understand that data is a target and when it gets stolen depending on how you have stored it you can be putting your customers at risk. so there is a recent revelation

and i won't name what was that there was an investment company in their brokers were developing psychological profiles of their clients. i cannot only imagine what it said and would identify ted is risk-averse and calley is a risk-taker and other key elements about their clients, store them in a database. they have since disbanded and americanized in that group no longer exists but the psychological profiles about every single client did and it was breached and stolen. think about the psychological profiles on your willingness to spend, invest and risk. >> you don't want to know. [laughter] >> not me. >> it's excluded me from russia. >> when you think about that example of what the group didn't even exist anymore but they didn't go back and clean up the

data, think about the responsibility companies have to you and that you have to your customers. that is one thing too we would like everybody to think about about. case law and ted and i talked about this and he showed me where caselaw is not really there yet. unless somebody got tipped to sue its not there in the laws are not on the book yet. >> the thing about caselaw is it takes taking a case all the way through. there's a phenomenal great plaintiffs thought case that was filed in the state of washington where it was about their mobile phone and the mobile phone came with a weather app. you couldn't get rid of the weather app and of course the weather app has to know where you are because how else can it tell you whether the weather? this weather after sending information every 10 minutes back to somebody who we may know.

plaintiffs counsel came up with a great argument. they said essentially that is a product defect that their client would never have bought the product had they known it was reporting to who knows to every 10 minutes on their location and they couldn't turn it off. it would be nice if we knew whether that case was something that would have worked or not but it was very quickly settled. other than having to case files we don't know what happened to it. we don't know where the law stance on something like that. it will be a long time before that kind of thing plays out in me really know what the law means in this area. >> so i know people have places to go and things to eat can do. taconite going to stay around for as long as you would like to answer questions. i questions. he wanted to thank ted and his law firm for generously sponsoring this event and i thank you all for coming

tonight. thanks. >> thank you, we appreciate it. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

c-span2 created by the cable-tv industry has brought to you as a public service by local, cable, satellite provider. watch us on hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. the senate commerce, science and transportation committee reviewed e-cigarette advertising specifically targeting young people. the hearing assess potential health impact of exposure to e-cigarettes. witnesses including campaign for tobacco free kids president matthew myers and the heads of e-cigarette companies hecigarettes and njoy. >> emotionally i am on edge on

this whole subject. i am on edge. the product whose popularity has recently been soaring including and especially among young people. we will hear today from the tobacco companies but whether they call themselves marketing to adults which i will find an amazing answer. e-cigarettes are battery operated products that vaporize a liquid containing nicotine. we all remember is that, don't we? eight people with their hands raised. we note cigarette and e-cigarette eyes somewhat different but nicotine is nicotine. little kids are little kids. they are looking for things, they