these protections we put in place for us persons for the reasons i just said, we also now have to start thinking about applying that to everyone regardless of nationality and i think that has been the change and at the same time it has been -- if you read how it's written in how we try to design it so it fits within the course of business for intelligent services, so it's nothing they would view as extraordinary-- extraordinary labor to. >> codification of best practices. >> to some degree. >> one last question on this topic. one of the great dilemmas reflects what jen was talking about witches internet data is is everywhere, but laws regulating data happens on specific chunks of the planet which may have different regimes that conflict with each other,

which then raises the dilemma if you have even robust democracies that share the same values, but different rules and try to share data with each other across international lines where one system doesn't line up well with the other one, so there was a great effort this year and the deal was struck with european union to try to resolve this. was the sort of one minute take away? >> the european union has a data protection regime and under that regime they regulate the data that leaves the european union member states for other countries are basically it requires the other country have adequate protection for privacy comparable to that european union data collection. since 2000 the us has negotiated an arrangement with european union so that american companies could bring data out of europe into the us called safe harbor. more recently the european court of justice took a look at what

the european submission had negotiated for safe harbor and basically overturned it required the european commission to reenter into a review and discussion period with us government to come up with some arrangements for companies to bring data into the us by adhering to some sort of best practice principles that are outlined in what is now the privacy seal. we leaned forward and provide information with european union negotiators. ..

they each have their own way of doing intelligence overs site, or not and there are points of the comparisons between what we do and what they do. that was not part of the discussion. the privacy shield is us explaining to them our protections under our various instruments and of course they had a whole bunch of other documents as part of the package. >> can i say something. one of the issues that civil libertarians have is why do i, why why should i as an american get less civil liberties if my data is overseas. one of the issues that europeans have connected with the privacy shield is why is my data subject

to warrantless wiretapping when i do business with these internet giants that are all located here in the u.s. the reason why the safe harbor was struck down was because the european court of justice said that section 702 does not comply with european standards are human rights law because it allows warrantless collection of european data for broad foreign intelligence reasons and that is not necessary and appropriate under their law. it was struck down and negotiators have come up with the privacy shield and that will be reviewed and they will make a decision as too whether it fixes the problem. and if you take a look at the privacy shield and you read the decision, it's very clear

there's a mismatch. the privacy shield has all of these additional procedural things about where somebody who happens to learn that they can go through this process and that kind of thing, but if the court is serious at the problem is the standard for accessing european data under 702 fall short of european and human rights standard, privacy shield does nothing to address that. i think that something we need to consider in the 702 that it's very important that we need these exchanges because loss of american customers. a lot of people depend on this trade but if they take itself, its own own opinion seriously, it will strike down privacy shield and it will be saying you need to give europeans citizens of substantive assurance that they will not be tapped.

>> we have five or six minutes left. it hand up to the microphone will be brought to you. lightning round for us before we go to that. looking forward to a trump administration assuming you stain your position now for a third presidency as director of national intelligence. what will you be watching for in the first year? >> i think we need understand what we do in the value that we had and how we conduct ourselves. i think a lot of changes. the reason we are doing things the way we do them now, those aren't going to change or go away. in order for us to be effective, i think we have to be committed to a kind of transparency initiatives that we been talking about engaging with folks here

in society more generally to understand their concerns and how we can best address those the kinds of things we have been talking about a part of the culture of what it means to be an effective intelligence professional and that is going to remain the case regardless of administration. we should be transparent. >> we publish principles that embody. they talk about awfulness and integrity, diversity,

stewardship so these are core principles that i think embody who we are as intelligence professionals. if you look at the history of surveillance it is a history of particle abuse. what you see is all there is but that's not actually true. our experiences in this moment of time. if the story of surveillance is a story of over collection. i'm not optimistic that things are going to change. we have had problems but those

could get a lot worse. one of the biggest problems we had was the amount and kind of things we rely on for accountability and fairness that are discretionary and as long as we are relying on discretionary and secret things to protect our right, we are under a lot of trouble under the trumpet ministration. >> thank you. i would like to pose the question of top of of incentives that are built into the problem of accountability and transparency in the other values that have been discussed here.

the impression has been that the cia and nsa are essentially in here generally disinterested parties. the reality i would suggest is that there are two incentives built into the problem that perhaps disturbed that picture. one is the fact that there is a power equation here. more bulk collection of intelligence that hinges on personal freedom gives greater power to high-ranking officials. >> what is your question. >> the other one is a potential conflict of interest in terms of profit. we know senior officials of the cia and nsa, particularly particularly in the cia have gone back and forth between the public positions and private concerns which have interest in

technology. >> do you have a question? >> the question is is it not the case that there is a conflict of interest here built into the situation where senior officials have an interest in technology which does tend to be in fact collecting bulk. >> so is there a conflict of interest at its seniors surveillance officials who didn't go to the private sector i want to have more spending and power on surveillance. >> i haven't seen any hint of that myself. i think the people i've been dealing with are very focused and that's a critical part of what they do and why they come to work and put up with as much of this the stuff that we put up with. >> i have not myself seen evidence of that. >> one last question from anyone else. >> thank you. i appreciate the information. my name is don and one question

i do have is that i been hearing all day about how the court is the oversight on what is taking place inside the collections. purely personal opinion, do you think the judges who comprise that have a level of understanding of the technology and methods that allow them to make a fair decision on what is being done? >> that's an interesting question. you are a lawyer. are the judges qualified even to understand what they're looking at. >> this is one of the, we don't know. we don't see their opinions, support hearings on open to some of the technology that's being used is very complicated, but from the stuff we see, we see we see that they have misunderstood or misapprehended programs that it approved. in 2011, eventually we saw this opinion, there was about 702. the court was surprised to learn that the way the government was

conducting the collection ended up grabbing the relevant communications as well as domestic medications which were about the foreign intelligence selector. the court hadn't known that before. its understanding of the program was different. in fact the program was so complicated that people inside the government, even once they learned this was the case had never told the people that they knew that they needed to tell the court. we've also seen court opinions of the legal matter that are subpar in terms of legal reasoning. we've seen ways in which the court has approved things without bothering to write an opinion or explain its decision-making. it's a real concern and that's one of the reasons i think in usa freedom there was the provision for legal advocate before the court but i think one of the reforms people are pressing for is too not only provide an alternative legal argument so the court can consider the issue better, but

also to provide technological expertise because so much of what ends up happening in surveillance is technology. >> the court is consistent of 11 district court judges. they serve on a rotating basis. in my experience they take their job very seriously. we have published their opinions and were looking to publish additional ones, they do hold the government to account and they have appointed legal advisors. is each individual fully convergent with technology, i can't speak to that. technology moves very quickly and it's complicated and hard to keep up with even for a technology advisor. they do take their jobs very seriously and they perform their duties professionally in my opinion. >> we are at a time so thank you so much for this wide-ranging discussion and i hope you enjoyed your day here and we will turn it back over to julian

[applause] >> thank you so much. our final speaker, before we release you to the world and are happy hour drinks, it's sort of the doctor who of intelligence surveillance law, digital surveillance law and that if you can look over the sweep of history and all of these crisis points and pivotal moments, somehow mysteriously he is there, like the doctor showing up in the old photo from the titanic in the battle of bull run. he was there at the justice department as a prosecutor in the '90s and as the courts were beginning to tame the wild west of cyberspace by interpreting law in this new domain. in 2008 they forced yahoo to

begin turning over his plans for what some might call general warrants, mark was there and indeed remains the only private attorney to actually argue in front of the very secretive foreign intelligence court and most recently when fbi and apple got into a couple over encrypted iphone drives, once again mark was there with apple's secret weapon, and ask what profile in the guardian. he is again very much like dr. who, someone who we are glad was that all these points when a lose. it's an interesting character with the fascinating perspective now going forward will continue in front of the foreign

surveillance court is someone providing an external perspective. please try me in welcoming him. [applause] >> thank you. i really appreciate the dr. who reference. i was afraid you were gonna go with the four-star reference. think you for having me here. it's been an interesting day. i'm glad i'm delivering closing remarks because there are many people in this room that i want to thank you people are watching what i want to thank you have worked hard to make sure our nations intel program follows the rule of law. this will be even more important in the upcoming years.

my remarks are on my own capacity, i'm not speaking on behalf of anyone and so there are some restrictions on what i can discuss but i will try to do it as best i can. for those of you who weren't paying attention to his detailed introduction, and the last eight years i've argued in front of the foreign intelligence surveillance order review twice. the first time was defending and representing yahoo the protect america act and the second time was earlier this year. i was challenging because it is now the of capturing post cut through dialed digits, the digits you dial after a phone call is completed to make a second call were entering banking information or personal information in the government was collecting not and i was challenging. as julian said, no one else has argued under the porter review.

the bad news is i'm 0 - 2. the good news is no one can claim a better record. i've done other things, reporting on national security profits, i've challenged gag orders in the district of maryland for providers who have had and the cells and wanted to talk about them in my declassified argument is not the only time i fought with the government in secret. the applications were really about efforts to make sure that providers and device manufacturers are going to become agents of government and help turn peoples devices against them. that's something i'm very worried about happening over the next four years. i want to start with a positive note which is that the vast majority of the work that i do is behind-the-scenes. it is not fighting with the governments in the courts, but it's counseling clients on how to match up the company to present visions of the privacy

act and match the data they have with the type of process the government needs to get. on this workout represent dozens of providers. this is crucial work. it's not high profile, it's not things you read about the paper, but the vast majority of the process the government is serving is routine process. they are serving it correctly, it's not controversial, it calls for proper data, but the providers need to understand exactly what data they can give back when they receive the search once, when they receive register orders and the fbi does not do good job of explaining it the fbi doesn't come in and say by the way, here are your options and challenging this if you want to challenge it except when the required to do it under the statute of nfl's. the bulk of my work in my career has been figuring out exactly what the government is entitled to get and helping providers given to them.

the reason reason i mention this is for balance. the providers serve as gatekeepers for a wealth of consumer data, and it's imperative that both the government follows their procedures in order to get data in the providers follow proper process in disclosing it. this ties in a lot with julian who said talk a little bit about why you spent so much of your career working on these cases. why have you made privacy this a centerpiece of your practice, and why did you build this and have 25 layers to deal with with it. it's a good question because you don't stop and think about everyday when day when you're doing it. the simple answer and it's probably the answer for most people in this room is we all want to do something that matters and i've always thought this matter. i still believe that. i believe that more today, even then i did maybe one month ago. being a gatekeeper for consumer data is somewhat ironic for me

to play that role. i started my career as a prosecutor at the department of justice and they spent a lot of time teaching fbi agents exactly how to gather electronic evidence. and how to use the existing authorities in the telephone world to get the data that was available in the internet world. what i saw was that there were very few lawyers that the internet companies could turn to to get advice, either when their systems were hacked or when they were asked to turnover data. there were many lawyers on the government side trying to figure out how to get it, but there are very few advising what to do when they get these requests. for a brief aside that i've never told people, this part part of my practice started in 2002. i had met a lawyer at a conference and i said to her, if you ever need advice on figuring out what to do when the government comes calling, let me know. about six months later, two hours after my son was born, while, while i was at the

hospital, she give me a call. she said yahoo is being, essentially bullied by the federal government in a child cannot really case. the kind of case companies want no part of employers want to stay away from. in that case they had submitted an affidavit that turned out to be false as to what type of materials they got when they join the group. a lot of prosecutions in guilty pleas have been based on this affidavit. yahoo was trying to help the government get it right that is, figure out exactly what information people to get with the government didn't really want to listen. they didn't want to the guilty pleas that had already happened and they didn't want to listen in part because if they believed them so yahoo turned me for help the government was powerful. the consequences of this fight

helping potential child pornographers wasn't a welcome consequence but for them the truth was important in standing up to the bullying of the government even knows a different agenda difficult place for any company to be, in the same way that bring bad people is difficult, but they but they wanted to have that fight and that's how i got started. in realizing that the government was taking some liberties in order to secure convictions and that wasn't something i had been a part of. okay, so with that personal bio, what ,-comma what is it like now? it is still difficult to be in the center of these fight. in any given week my client can be criticized for not helping the government, even though doing so would be next renée measure, in the san bernardino case for example, to weaken the security of their devices, merely because merely because the government wants to look under every rock when there's no

real expectation of finding something, or they can be criticized for helping the government to too much like yahoo was in a case when yahoo was being asked to do something they didn't feel would undermine the privacy of legitimate users in the same way. my clients do fight and providers to challenge these orders, they're often not able to talk about it. again the yahoo example, i was unable to talk about the fight until after 2013, after the disclosure and they were being unfairly criticized for having rolled over and given that the government access when nothing could be further from the truth. they had fought at every level to avoid doing so. it's no wonder they think of this as a no in the area of operations. with that background and with the things i've done and seen and as we close today's conference, i thought we would talk for a few moments about what i'm most hopeful about and

most worried about the next four years. i'll start with what i most hopeful about because it short. >> in the years after the snowden disclosure, we had made progress on a lot of fronts, much of it had been with regard to transparency and the procedure aspect of litigating in front of the foreign intelligence board. in the past, i testified in front of the civil liberties and oversight board that litigating was a lot like sending a letter to santa class. you gave a document to somebody, you don't know what happened to it or where it went, something came back and were never really saw the whole process. we just had to believe it was working. we are in a different world, the processes improved and happily this year for the court of review there is access. [inaudible] my arguments thousand eight there was a one decision case that had been classified and

published. that was it. there were no rules to follow. now both courts have published rules and procedures. there is physical space for the court to meet. there's a place for the group that's been appointed to do research and be there at the court and write briefs and is not nearly the mysterious process it was before. of course, there's me for other people who are appointed, now five to serve in the court is not just tolerating that process but actively using it. two people were publicly appointed this year to argue cases referred to the court of review. there's more transparency because there is reporting now by the service providers and the procedures to challenge gag orders on national security levels. that has been a lot of progress and it is progress that is

consistent in its direction and it's hard to undo because the ports are involved, judges are involved. the question was asked before about the judges on the private court and there are problems with the judges understanding technology, but they are the same problems that are in all of the federal judiciary. i argued up class-action privacy in the first circuit. one of the judges was justice souter in the first circuit, not necessarily the draw you want when you're arguing about a case involving video privacy. but he doesn't have email. i'm trying to explain to him on appleworks and what kind of data and apps collects and he hasn't started using e-mail for professional or personal use. so, while there are problems with the judges, generally i don't think the problems are different or unique and it's a problem of applying a lot of technology and the technology is difficult. these were all the positive

notes, and i don't attribute it all to the snowden disclosures but also i attribute it to quality of people who filled the key roles in the department of justice and other federal agencies in the past of ministration. i do believe people were trying to do the right thing on the transparency side and to make it a more open place in a place where there is another side to be heard. but, the change in administration takes me to the four things i'm most worried about, and here they are. one, i think it's possible that the time for meaningful positive reform may be over. we will effectively have to shift from playing offense to playing the defense. for the past several years, many of us have been working to ensure that there are meaningful checks and balances for the executive branch in carrying out domestic and to some extent foreign surveillance and it's been a difficult fight but we made progress. now is when the values of those checks and balances will be tested.

i have to say, i was a little bit satisfied in a little bit disturbed to hear my old adversary matt olson say that when he was in the government he couldn't imagine the government ever being led by president trump. he suggested that had he been able to imagine it he might have viewed the things a little differently. i was satisfied to hear but i was disappointed with his failure of imagination. it should not have been that hard to fathom. president nixon was not that long ago. how soon we forget, and those failures of imagination can be costly. we will find out how costly they were, whether we got enough or form such as the key institutions that we put into place will save us from bad outcomes over the next four years or whether we are left in a position where the appointment of a few loyalists will remove the discretion that we have and

return us to an area of discretion. i don't know if we made enough progress but i'm worried that we didn't worried that the people responsible wish they could go back and do it differently. speaking of which, carry had said this morning that it would be a waste of time for the civil liberties community to spend all of its resources fighting 702 reauthorization. it's one of the most regular areas of government surveillance in the last panel they suggested there still a fight to be had. i probably with carrie.

[inaudible] there are areas where there is discretion like under 12 triple three so we have to not, we have to recognize we won't get everything we want on reform but we are pretty good there and we are in dangerous places elsewhere. that said i do have some comments and this is the second thing i'm worried about. there is a growing trend to rely on minimization as a solution for everything. generally the court does not see a problem with over collection as long as minimization and use restrictions follow. the touchstone of all of their decisions seems to be reasonable list and they suggest they are not sympathetic to arguments for prior judicial review by it detached magistrate. we are effectively in a world of collect everything and figure out the rules later and if the

rules are reasonable it's okay. i think the job is to point out the problem with this approach. collecting and maintaining vast quantities of data that was collected outside the framework becomes too tempting a resource for the government to dip into whatever they want. i'm not just talking about the backdoor search loophole but i am talking about that in part. we are building vast collections of data. when i argued this case in 2008, they stood before the court and when the court asked what the harm was and how these people could be affected by surveillance of nothing bad happened to them, the solicitor general said that's right, there's no database of that collected information. doj is not maintaining a database. whether that was true or not at the time, it's not true now. we know there's a database of a lot of collected information. there were 94000 targets in 2015 according to the dni report and if each one of those, there is a

million u.s. medications sitting in the database for one year that the government can query. this is a job for the civil little liberties community. the companies are pretty good and want to fight to make sure it data doesn't leave their doors when it shouldn't, but once it goes out, the further use of that information is not really a fight that companies can and have taken on and they lose the unite entry and unique standing may have once they collect and produce it. for two more things i'm worried about. you know pause for questions. i'm worried that encryption is still being viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. during the russian hacking of the d&c when all the plain text emails came out ,-comma what didn't we see? we didn't see secure communications. we didn't see eye messages or signal messages. this should be the wake-up call

to point out that for all the claims that encryption is preventing the government from seeing the important medications between the bad guys, it's actually quite good at securing the communications between the good guys. a key message for coming out of these russian hacks should be the end to end encryption is actually important to keep our country safe, not just to protect the privacy of communication between individuals, but to keep our country safe we need security medications. i'm not sure that's going to be the take away but i like it should be. it drives home the point that a lot of the technology companies are making that it's not privacy versus security. security versus security. it's just two different types of security. the way i like to think about this is the difference between cameras and locks. if we know someone is threatened to steal something valuable we put it behind a locked door and we try to secure it. we don't just send a lot of cameras to watch it. all that will do is tell us who took it but it won't keep it safe. encryption will keep the communication safe and yes we

won't have great visibility, cameras won't work as well, but it will to secure the infrastructure. i think the russian hacks are a wake-up call for that. all of the hacks show that we are generally feeling as a society on the protection side. we are not feeling so much on the catch the bad guys side. so the choice that we are faced with is, do we want have better secured systems at the bad guys can also use and we have to have a way to catch them or do we want have better security and catch them in other ways but we can't have it both ways. when people pulled told the last of ministration that they said we don't really believe you, there there has to be another way. this is the problem we will face over the next four years. the new administration shows a propensity to not believe science at all.

they don't believe the science of climate change, they don't don't believe the forensic evidence of hacking and they're not likely to leave that building back doors were weak and rather than strengthen our national security. they've an early disdain for evidence-based decision-making and that makes me very worried when a society stops listening to scientists and disregards evidence, it's in trouble. i hope my concerns about this are overblown. finally i am worried that the government will work to turn the ubiquity of home technology against u.s. citizens. five years ago this concern was kind of quaint. it was about whether the government could turn on the microphone and a laptop and spy on us and when this question was posed to fbi director called me he said it's a good idea to put tape over the webcam when it's not in use. as a society we have moved well past table for the webcam. our houses are filled with the internet of things. we have nest thermostats and drop cams that we drive connected cars and if the early

sales of black friday are to be believed, everyone will have an amazon echo in their house spread the rules on when the government can force providers to activate these devices are just as unclear as the rules were for e-mail and text messages back and thousand one when i left doj. if there's one thing i intend to personally work on in the next four years it's working with providers of these technologies to set clear rules on what they will and won't do when they are faced with third-party requests so our consumer technology is not turned turned against us as a new vehicle for government surveillance. okay, was that depressing enough? let me close with one find of perverse note of hope and it does go back to the first panel of the morning. in the fight that apple had with the fbi over a mocking phones, a lot of the public sentiment was pretty split. people seem to think the u.s. government should be entitled to get whatever it needed with a one understood that it was a

problem if a foreign regime or leader could force apple to turn data over to them. it was inconceivable in the words of wallace shawn and princess bride and too most people except to the europeans that the u.s. government should be locked out of the data for fear it would use them properly. people forget it was the surveillance abuses of the intelligence apparatus of the united states under president johnson and nixon in the late 70s and the findings of the church committee that brought about the need for reform in first place. given the rhetoric of president-elect trump during the campaign cycle, it's no longer a far-fetched notion that u.s. citizens need to be protected from abuse from the u.s. government, and not just foreign government. that difference that you heard in the first panel of the day may end up making somewhat of a difference in the surveillance debate in congress and in court. for the sake of all the people in this room and the sake of the

rule of law, let's hope so. [applause] >> we were really up against the time limit, i will suggest the folks here who want to ask more questions take the opportunity to do so while we prepare in the atrium. folks watching us on our website or via c-span, i'm afraid you have to supply your own alcohol, but you are welcome to join us in spirit. thank you all and please think all of our speakers once again, as well as our conference staff and those who did the hard work will i stand up and take credit for organizing all this. please join us outside.

[inaudible conversation] coming up today here on c-span two, the father of a six-year-old killed killed in the sandy hook mass shooting in 2012, a discussion among women entrepreneurs in silicon valley, and the supreme court oral

argument about legislative gerrymandering that reduces the power of african-american voters >> join us on tuesday january 3 for live coverage of the opening day of the new congress. watch the official swearing-in of the new and reelected members of the house and senate. and the election of the speaker of the house. our all day live coverage of the days event from capitol hill begin at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. also c-span.org. or you can listen to it on the free c-span radio app. >> now the father of a six-year-old killed in the sandy hook mass shooting four years ago talks about mental health and gun violence. he spoke at the clinton school of public service at the university of arkansas. it is 50 minutes.

>> good evening. doctor richmond has extensive research experience that ranges from neuroscience to cardiovascular disease. he has worked in the arena for over two decades and is passionate about helping people leave passionate and more healthy lives. he is dedicated to reaching out and educating youth and believes our future relies on their imagination. this is manifested through his teaching martial arts, biology, neuroscience and rock climbing to children and teens for the past 25 years. most importantly, he believes it is critical to empower youth to advocate for themselves and their peers when it comes to brain health and brain illnesses toward this end, he and his wife started the foundation committed to preventing violence and building compassion through brain health research community

and education. dr. richmond serves as the ceo of the foundation as well as a faculty lecture appointment at the college of medicine. please help me welcome jeremy richmond. [applause] >> can everybody hear me i appreciate you all being here tonight. it's an honor to come out here to the foundation and address you guys. i really appreciate it. we will be talking tonight about the science of violence and compassion and the idea of preventing violence through research and education. it's a pretty simple for him. i will introduce my favorite

topic, the brain and i'll lead into introductions to myself and a few different ways on the idea of violence and its role coming from brain health. then we will get into the meat of it, introducing a model or a paradigm of violence and compassion talk about risk factors and then i will conclude with the idea that in order to be human, it really relies on our ability to be humane. without further ado, the brain. we can look at the human body and we all know we have these organs that have these great functions but we know the heart pumps the blood to us and we have the liver and the kidneys in the stomach, we all understand what they do and their critical need. we also recognize that we have a brain and that's necessary to kind of coordinate and run all of these things, but when i tell people that brain science is entirely unexplored, it really surprises people and i don't think people understand the extent to which we are ignorant about our brains.

brain science is the least known about all of our science but bar none paid we know more about the surface of mars in the ocean and subatomic particle structures than we do what's between our ears, and one of our 15-year-old interns put it best when she said considering this is the organ we use to consider, it's really ironic how little we know about it. the brain is housed inside of our skull. you can't put it back and have it be in the same shape is when you started and you can't look at it and gather what it does just by looking at it. so as a result, we think of ourselves in a dualist way. here's our meat and this is the function that they serve, so i'm out here somewhere, it's mystical and a little bit magical, but we have to recognize that our behaviors compound this organ. there's nothing else out there, there's no strings attached.

we are responsible for taking care of these actions through taking care of this organ, the brain. so while it is just another organ, we know a lot less about it and you need to fill some puzzle pieces in compared to the other organs. let me introduce myself and why i'm here. i am in neuroscientists, i got into neuroscience because i was touched at a very young age by grandfather who had alzheimer's disease. how many of you have been touched by that disease in some way or another? almost everybody. what i really quickly learned when my grandfather suffered from this was that it's a lot more than i just can't remember things as easily. i was profoundly moved by the fact that who we are, all the way down to our core and our entire essence really relied, our personalities rely on the proper functioning of this organ and if it doesn't work right, we

don't act right either. and so, that that moved me to study neuroscience how the brain works hand in those days we didn't have undergraduate degrees and i don't know exactly what i wanted too so i would go door-to-door and neck engine knocking on the labs in the hospital thinking i want washer dishes or do anything. i just needed to get into a lab. after washing dishes i got to do experiments and finally one day i was given a chance and i started alzheimer's disease, parkinson's disease, schizophrenia and then i moved into studying pain modulation and obesity and i took off from there. the only reason i highlight this is because i think it's important to point out that when we pursue endeavors that touch us personally, we find so much more value in life. we are more passionate and that's really important to tell anybody, but really when you're

talking to youth, encouraging to let thing lead through their passion because it will feel so much more fulfillment in life when you do that. my wife is a scientist as well, jennifer, and i would i would like to introduce us as parents, jennifer and i had a beautiful baby girl and 2006, the most amazing spirit. this kid can light up the room with a smile. it's infectious. it's infectious. she can't help but smile and laugh when you see it. she loved stories and really valued the ability to tell a story and study it and love telling stories. she needed stories to fall asleep, driving in the car, going to the bathroom, wherever she was, tell me a story, read me a story, and she come at a very young age, she recognized that her life is a story and that the most mundane thing was

the perspective that this is part of a chapter, this is part of a story and i want people to read it and engage it and that suddenly changes the view of what you're doing and it can make it more joyful. unfortunately her story ends very short and tragically when she was murdered in her first grade classroom with 19 of her classmates and six educators on a very dark friday in the sandy hook elementary school shooting in newtown connecticut. as you can imagine, very few things can touch you so profoundly and our world was turned upside down. we were literally on the floor. it just felt like there was nothing to hold onto. immediately we felt entirely compelled that we had to do something. we recognized that we have a problem of violence and we need to do something to stop it.

we started traveling around the country talking to people about our ideas and how we were going to respond and what we were going to do and people would express to us the concept, they would close their eyes and touched her face and say i can't imagine what you're going through, i can't imagine that loss. while we of course appreciate the sentiment, and it comes from a good place, the irony is that when you close your eyes and you do that, you are imagining it. we need to imagine it because until you let something touch you, until you walk a few steps in those shoes you're not gonna do anything about it. we spent too long reacting to things and not doing anything to prevent them. we said not only can you imagine that but we are obligated to. we have to put ourselves in

those shoes and walk around for a while or nothing changes. we have the trademark that you can imagine. on the bright end of the tunnel is the imagination we paint our world beautiful colors and set ourselves free to make tomorrow better than today. there's a great quote, to you are guilty but all are responsible. we are all responsible for our behaviors come the behaviors of our loved ones and our communities that we live in. we have to imagine it. we have a lot to imagine. it is a strange, surreal experience to be flying here on the 15th anniversary of september 11, here i am in an airplane where 2996 people died in a violent tragedy. there are a lot of people that feel the ripples from that and

its profound and they're presenting to you today on september 12 which should've been ben wheeler's tenth birthday. he died in the classroom next door. there's another family that can imagine it directly. if you think about it, everybody that you talk to, every, every pair of eyes you look into, there is tragedy in everybody's heart. there's adversity that everybody faces and we have to remember that when we are stressed out when the guy cut you off in traffic, you have to think to yourself there's a storm raging in them. they're fighting a battle to, they're just not wearing a uniform, but everybody is facing something. a great quote by reverend watson, to be kind to everyone you meet is fighting a constant

battle. we have a problem in our country. we have a violent epidemic. when i talk violence, i'm not talking about the sensationalized act that we see all too often on our television, that take place in florida or virginia tech or oklahoma, were talking about our street corners in our homes, violence to self and others every day. during the time we said in here, two kids will be killed in our country. every 66 and a half minutes someone is raped. one in five of you are going to be victimized violently this year. that is unacceptable. we react to violence in our country because it's so common we become skilled at reacting to it we are shocked when we tell people we stand over a third of our federal budget responding to

violence, primarily with incarceration. we don't spend a fraction of that, you couldn't even grasp it on the same pie chart how much we spent researching and studying how to prevent it, where does it come from. we need to change that. what is violence? if we look at the definition of violence, i often pull audiences but i want to to be sustained today so i'm just gonna give it to you. violence is the intentional use of force or power threatened or actual against a group or community at large that has a likelihood in resulting of injury or death, psychological horror champ arm or neglect. again, here's the pie chart i was was talking about. we spend a lot of money reacting to it but we don't spend any time preventing it. when jennifer and i were faced

with this, we wanted to play to our strengths as scientist and we said let's create a foundation that studies violent ,-comma what are the risk factors. what happens in the black box of the skull and change it so we can build compassion, build connection. we created the foundation in honor of our daughter, leaving her with a legacy to reduce violence and encourage compassion. specifically, we throw money through grants to study research what happens in the big brain that leads to violent behavior. :

it's got to be straightforward and completely approachable, not intimidating so the parents teachers students health care providers the everyday person can use these tools to improve their lives and to increase connections and take action. that is our mission and basso we are working for. we believe that when people have this education it's not just power. knowledge is and just power, it's empowering, it's infectious. once you are infected you have no choice but to get involved and take action to change yourself or others.

so we as well what tools do we have and our toolbox? what they were used to study the brain. such an uncharted territory we have a long road ahead of us. we do have an amazingly powerful tool that we can use. we can look at the brain and we can see the brain with amazing technology with magnetic resonance images and are lined up a "functional sense that we can watch the brain as it's doing something. we can do it as a fluid chemistry for began the take saliva or blood or and measure the components for stress hormones. we also have powerful genetic knowledge now. we know what all of our genes are pretty good look at those genes and say what's difference between this person's genes in that person's genes. we have at the genetics on top of genetics that studies how the environment shapes the expression of our genes. these are some of the tools we have at our disposal and now

what we need to do is use those tools to bridge the structural and biochemical science with the tell me about your mother behavioral science. to illustrate what i mean to make that clear here on the left you have the structure of serotonin one of our neurotransmitters to chemically find in your brain that we know is if it's dysfunctional a signaling is filled with feelings of overwhelming grief and sadness we called depression. we have a bridge between the biochemical the serotonin in the behavior, depression. but we don't have a set piece of the puzzle that flew leads to a rack to flee violent individual who snaps and explodes it appropriately. road rage on somebody or the kid in the lunch line who screams at a kid because he was disrespectful. what is difference between the reactive for the proactive individual?

its disenfranchised separate from society and by the way we are trying to find ways to hurt, the serial killers and. what's the difference between their brains and the everyday citizen's rain? on the other side of that equation what is it that leads to somebody's mindfulness, these incredible acts of peace and compassion? what happens in that brain that leads to that? that's what we need to fill in but unfortunately there are a lot of terriers to this right now. the biggest barrier is the mental barrier. right now we diagnose diseases of the brain based on symptoms or groups of symptoms that we call syndromes. with experts checklists and surveys in opinions and oftentimes can you imagine going to doctor and she looks at you and she says while your no's is

running in your eyes are puffy and your throat is scratchy, you have a cold. that would be ridiculous, right? if you go to the doctor feeling depressed sadness and overwhelming grief and you answer yes to five out of nine questions on the questionnaire you are depressed. there are two problems with this the first of which is that's why i came in here. what i want is a reason for it. i need to have a pathology. i need to identify something that is wrong so i can hope it they can be right again. the other thing is if you end to the doctor with a bone sticking out they wouldn't say hey you have a broken radius. you have prostate cancer but you do get labeled you are schizophrenic, you are bipolar, your child is add. i guarantee if you tell a kid they're hyperactive they are going to be hyperactive. the self fulfilling prophecy.

we need to get away from the labels to make the invisible world of mental and the visible world of the brain, call it what it is. it's just another organ. while it is complex it's not complicated. we know the behavior comes from their. we need to give people hope instead of labeling them and causing them fear trepidation and the big s words stigma associated with it the character designate we need to let people know it chemistry and structure and yes you are responsible for that chemical and structure but it is changeable. into -- can you imagine going to the doctor and now she says johnny is doing well on the growth curve and he is more active than it was before but if we find too much dopamine in his cortex which is a fancy way of saying this completely explains his impulse control problem and here's what we are going to do. we want you to work on this for the next few weeks maybe take a

medication whatever the therapy becomes that gets apparent hope. no character flaw, their child is unbroken, they are not bad parents and they don't have to read another self-help book. then they can get help for themselves and their loved one without the fear of discrimination and stigma. that is the brain health. i want you all to leave here tonight with a whole new lexicon take mental out of it entirely. just replace it with brain, change your brain mentality. but if we don't know what's going on in there is there anything we can do? what can we do today? i need to prevent something from happening. while the brain is a black locks and there we do know that if you input some of these risk factors you are likely to get violent behavior out. you have a broken family unit one that is abusive, abusive,

abusive neglectful if you don't have the supportive peer group if their substance abuse involved, if you have access to firearms no matter how contentious the debate is scientific fact it increases your risk of self or other violence. toxins in your environment coming tricia matters. physical trauma to the brain. we see a lot of this in the movie concussion, fantastic. the problems we have in the military population with dramatic brain injuries. violent media is a risk factor. infections and inflammation. these are risk factors that lead to increased tendencies for violent behavior and on the other side we have protective factors that lead away from violence towards anti-violence. i don't know what else to call it beside compassion. normally i like to expand on

each of these and talk about the scientific supporter mcginty that after this. i'd like to have a discussion on any of these if you would like but i want to focus on a couple of them because i think there very valuable for tonight. one is the nature nurture component. everybody says is that how you are borne? are you resigned to the genes or is it the beier that matters? when it comes to the nature nurture debate there is no debate. when anybody else you do you think it's the genes or the environment, nature or nurture want you to sarcastically say of course it is. you can't separate nature and nurture. your genes determine how you see the world and what's relevant to what gets filtered in and out and the environment shapes what genes are expressed in what organs are expressed and how long they are expressed. you can't separate them. is a great behaviorist who has the quote what contributes more to the area of a rectangle the link for the width?

you might have some skinny short rectangles and you might have some long tall skinny rectangles but every disease and behavior has a component of both. most of them are going to be square. because of that, we can really speculate, so with this individual was treated towards violence what can we do? we have control of the environment and if that person was predisposed and raised in an abusive household in a horrible environment that they live in with maybe physical trauma they are going to likely end up as a violent individual with these behaviors but the same individual race with protective factors that are nurturing and how they could end up on fortune 500 ceo of world leaders. this is true and not science fiction because our brains are

plastic throughout her lies. neuroplasticity in response to her experiences. occurs on a molecular level and it occurs on the cellular level. contrary to what -- you were not born with a set number of rain cells that just go down with time. we are making new ones in reshaping the ones that we have all the time and you are doing it right now. some of us more than others. it occurs on a regional basis like the muscle. the more you use it the more effective it's usable and the less you use it that less the gets taken away from going to skip through the statistics but when you're born you have about 100 billion neurons in your head that's a large number but even cooler is each of those neurons has the ability to communicate with over 2500 other neurons which in turn communicate with another 2500 neurons. it's an amazingly elaborate network of communication going

on that when he reached the age of three all the way up through adolescence, which is not a team somewhere for girls in their early 20s and boys a little bit later than that your brain is prime for communication and developing and learning. 15,000 other cells are talking to them. that's amazing. that's a machine that we can't fathom. as you become an adult you are not becoming by losing those synapses connections. it's called pruning and it's that's how you become your unique individual that you are. you lose the connections that you didn't use and you strengthen the one that you did so they fire more effectively and that's how we become ourselves. with that in mind i love the quote by frederick douglass. it's easier to build strong children than to repair broken adults. what you can't teach an old dog

new tricks you can raise a child without the bad in the beginning. we will skip the cool brain connections. it's easy to look at those risk factors and start to cross them off and say you know what i'm good to go, i have a healthy family and we eat well and we make sure they wear their helmets when they ride their bikes. they are not exposed to violent media that often, we are good to go. unfortunately it's not that easy. like a muscle, which is either growing stronger or weaker in atrophying bears no balance point. size in flux. our brain is that we too. if you are not actively pursuing protective factors you are moving downhill towards more aggression and violence. that's just the way it is so if you look at the protective factors here we ask ourselves what can i work on today? what can i build?

i really want to highlight self-mastery and emotional intelligence. self-mastery isn't incrementally derived set that makes an achieved goal to delay gratification to identify, to name and tame your emotions. to recognize that your behavior affects the emotions of other people but to use them to make informed choices and you can build the skills. they can be taught in an academic sense. this is so important that it's starting to become a real buzz words. it's so important that when the governor commissioned the sandy hook advisory report following the sandy hook router they came to one critical conclusion and that was that social and emotional learning is an integral part of our curriculum from preschool through high school. a lot of parents would say well gosh i want my kids to learn

reading, writing and math and how are we going to spend all this time on this staff? i've got news for you. it comes by many different names. it's social emotional learning 21st century skills making a cool for the business leader self-mastery, grid. we don't like that term anymore so we use different. whatever you call it turns out if you build it into the academic curriculum your kids do better on their test scores so you are good to go. they improve profoundly and while we are at it what to does academic test scores predict in terms of success for your children? well of course if your kid is going to be a physicist they need to know some math. if they're going to biologist they need to know some biology but when we look at what they predict in terms of their success there is no predictive power. what it does tell us is

disturbing to me. the better you do when reading the writing math worldwide to more money your family has at the time he took the test. i don't think that's what we are trying to predict. on the other hand emotional intelligence, self-mastery, self-discipline predicts success in life. what do you define success as health, wealth or happiness your emotional intelligence from low to high is -- being incarcerated. he predicts your liability of abusing substances, alcohol or drugs. predict how often you were going to see the doctor. can you imagine that? i love this one. he predicts your credit scores. he predicts how much money you make is an adult. he predicts your parenting skills and a predicts your overall satisfaction come your perception of how happy you are with life. all the things that we should be teaching our kids should be

emotional intelligence and self-mastery, character building the ability to define yourself and delay gratification and stick to them. here's another example really quick of how this can be applied in a socially valuable way. in wisconsin in the southeast portion near medicine they had a lot of violence particularly juvenile violence and we are not talking petty theft. we are talking about juvenile homicide inactivated us all. to the point they said we can't afford this. we obviously can't afford this on the philosophical and moral level but we legally can afford this because each of those beds cost around 65 grand in a correctional juvenile processing system. we have what is called a compression model led by law enforcement for kids than in

fact lose rights and privileges and if they continue to lose them until they are in complete isolation which does nothing to correct them. this is clear by the fact that you follow them for five years. over 70% of them recommit another rape, murder or record the assault. 70%. now they are lifers. now we are not paying 60-day -- 65 grand for a bed. we are paving -- paying 80 grand out of your pocket. there's no corrections involved so they said let's do an experiment. we have got nothing to lose and a lot to gain. let's change the model around to compression and decompression. they went to a hospital led by health care providers. of course there is to law enforcement security there. these are dangerous kids but they are given individual attention. there given cognitive behavioral

therapy and i would argue my therapy friends forgive me i would argue it's not the cbt that matters its just the attention that matters. they are taught that their lives matter and their actions have consequences that affect other lives in a profound way. this is such a dramatic effect that only two years after instituting this model and following the kids for another five years they cut recidivism in half. that is a model that we can afford. we need to do more of these studies. we need to expand it to a larger dataset so will still hold water to scientific sense to see if we can apply it to the adult population. that would be true corrections. why do i think that this happens? why are these risk factors risk factors in why the protective factors protective? if you look the human brain that we have a bald overtime it's not bigger brains that we have got come is a specialized part of

our brain called the neocortex duration of the neocortex is the whole brain volume that makes us unique. if we look at what that correlates with your correlates well with that group we live in. i'm not sure if we have big neocortex because we live in large groups are relived in large groups because we have a big neocortex. regardless we all live in large communal settings that when we talk about evolution we don't play by the same rules anymore and we need to recognize that. here we have darwin's finches. the upper left number one in its environment and had to adapt to survive by crunching tough and seeds and if it didn't it would be extinct. had to adapt. the one on the lower right, number four that finches environment had carbohydrate

rich environment where they needed to get their beaks into the flowers to get the nutrients inside. it didn't adapt and genetically if all that died off. humans don't work like that. we want to we build in nutcracker. if we are cold we make jackets. we went to the moon just to check it out. we are very adaptable. we sued our environment to fit us and i argue it's not the genetics that make us adaptable, it's what richard dawson called dennis maddux. it's the sharing of knowledge that matters, the sharing of our stories, or or individual dialogues our thoughts and ideas in our creation with each other that allows us to evolve. it allows us to connect communicate and create to evolve

that is a unique ability to humans is what makes us human. ironically it's the ability to be humane that makes us human. again we are fraught with contrived barriers all the time. if you look around the world it turns out people are shocked when i say there's no such thing as rage. there is only the human -- this is a fact. these people in nigeria are genetically similar to these in southern california. in fact avielle's brank brain could be more similar to the girl on the top right. it's just a fact so am i saying when you get your college entrance or job application what race you identify with you can cross off in say hey i'm a human? yes that's true but the while there is no such thing as race there is unfortunately all the isms that we contrive with

racism and until those are normalized we can't evolve. until we take those barriers down we can't live to our potential so we really need to imagine eating humane in order to be evolved humans that we are. that's how we will build compassion. so before i go i promised my wife i wouldn't forget this stuff. i would really appreciate if you guys would go on line and donate because we need your funds to do the research and the education we are doing. if you shop on amazon it's easy. go to smile about amazon.com and they will ask you what charity you want to support. doesn't cost you anything and amazon donates a portion of your purchase. like us, follow us, tweet us and share us. it matters. not only matters to give us exposure but it matters because

when people are talking about brain health and a comfortable and transparent way suddenly the barriers can be broken down. people will take their brain health into their own hands without fear and trepidation. i thank you for all your time and i hope i didn't go way too far over. [applause] >> we have got some time for questions and the first question is right up here. you have to wait for the microphone. >> i heard you when you started with your daughter. we know now that i can be on a plane, i can be on a ship, i can be in a place that knows how to

take that cell phone, that photo and start to teach them how to use it. i believe that's human capital that we have not used. does any of your research tell you how to take that human capital? with all of them have digital in their hands they can be a tutor? >> that's a very good question and yes we talk about violence being a problem here's an experiment. what i think is violence in media is a respecter that leads to violence. what beauty do you think i'm talking about? movies, that's great. when we think about the fact that television is so pervasive

and it's on all the time, turns out since the 60s they have done research all the way up to last week you can find papers that clearly correlate violent 80 a without the violence and increased aggression so much so that two of our surgeon generals issued warnings. can then you take into account television is totally passive. sit back relax and be entertained. our video games now are so immersive. oftentimes first person so that you were seen again through the eyes of -- and it's real-time so you are punished for the wrongdoing and immediately you are reinforced and punished immediately. you take that into account with the fact that 25% of video games just by their nature are purely violent. call to duty or -- and the other

75% still have some component of violence. take it much games like mine craft and now you have mine craft "hunger games". he take that into account in you say wow we need to get rid of video games but you are not going to get rid of them. that's totally naïve and you have as you pointed out such an amazing tool, such a great platform to educate through. violent video games in america make $1.3 billion. that purchase power is profound. if we say we don't want that, we want this we need to support educational and clever character building games that are kids engage in which there's a do anyway. 95% of our adolescence play video games and engage with this electronic device.

we can demand that it be made and will be one of the most effective tools. >> a question right here. >> i have studied narrow theology and narrow economics and have read about them. the question i have is dealing with narrowed plasticity how does the violent games and television impact that and juveniles and adults who repeat violent offenders how can neuroplasticity help mitigate against future violence? >> those are the pieces of the puzzle that are still missing and those are the types of research studies we are trying to define. the unsatisfying answer is we don't know. we don't know what are the consequences, the physical manifestations of being abused,

what has changed about the incarcerated individual. what we do know is their brains are plastic much of what has been

>> >> one this just a word of bed in this whole mind-set of how you think about it. him aside work at the farcical company for decades they all get it is the brain

that they study table in love to have that ability to diagnose tizzies -- indices' so there is no hesitation in the medical field that any way. and then to be recruited igo goal that had then negative solicitude of mental health. but totally get set. but the concern is important that people don't begin to discriminate that mental illnesses a violent. we don't want that perception.

i am not saying that they might suffer schizophrenia but even though they might be hot hong negative that takes away. if you don't know why somebody is acting weird and crazy then you are scared. and so i have to take my medication. i share your briefcase say i have to take medication name hearing voices are they talking to you right now? but we have to realize it is not a character flaw but a chemical flaw is.

>> second four from speaking up in a sense you are a great profile in courage and thank you very much. let's give him a round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations] in

from the computer history museum in california this is one hour 20 minutes. >> for tonight's program the history of of computing and entrepreneurship is so connected in some anyways especially silicon valley that we are living through a transformational time some save more than history and in turn is led by remarkable people. tonight with their doing in the transformational area that evokes the change at the heart of the story pet is taking to document and explain.

to greet guests to kickoff the series and through their introductions and the conversation is the executive director. working in the field of the ovation for more than two decades. ken and i am delighted to introduce you to her right now. marguerite hancock. [applause] >> this evening. welcome to night to the inaugural even kicking off our founders and changemakers and visionaries. pioneers of of possible.

with us stories of silicon valley. said to support the often go unheralded one dumping between 10 and 15% in 2016 but they are rare fortunately for us we have to win in entrepeneurs with us tonight. make no mistake these entrepeneurs are noteworthy part impact by any measure it also happened to both these women. so i will share five numbers with you. a venture-capital list stanford lecturer in larger premiership and a recovering

on japan your. sheet for started to come women years ago when one serving as vp of worldwide developer relations at apple then became a venture-capital list 820 million the number of dollars of and - - of investment. she advises entrepeneurs 37 serving as a board member six public companies named to a numerous topless including the top 50 women of tech also we active in education or she received your undergraduate and on a personal note to -- two kids

and to rescue dogs are in her life. heidi roizen. [applause] >> a serial entrepeneurs a young global leader and co-founder of a web performance security company graduate of harvard business she works with cool -- kugel and toshiba. including the co-founder and 5,000,001 internet properties with 12,000 added daily to be selected to

years in a row the most innovative technology company other then the unique club of unicorns of the private valuation the recipient of many awards in 2012 the year she was selected she is an alumna of the computer history museum and also the number month-old of her children. >> brcs so excited to have you here to be remarkable in

so many ways so talk about the beginning of your journey of your personal experience of you wanting to be a entrepeneur. my father was an unsuccessful bill was happy get as a job by what you do that? make something or figure out what people want and make that happen. to control your life and contributed to in ways that you could not do. i had somebody that believed in that. even though i was in is the

male child that she will be like me. >> i love this story beginning with your father. michele? >> i grew up in the of the love can then named saskatchewan north of north dakota you know, where that is. and it may be yet 35,000 now. so there are sports teams, they are big believers and my mom told me about this program. call junior achievement. i went nfl in love.

the exposure to entrepreneurship with a group of kids from all different schools. and we may day horserace game. and then to assemble these games then end up where winning the entrepreneurship award and it was amazing. i love to make that n cell into somebody. i just love that. >> course race games? saskatchewan. >> of live of board games.

>> such n important part of the museum now is that in your life quite. >> my dad is here tonight and they were very strict but you have to go all schools but they were very strict on that. and i remember to go for education i has scholarships

you can go anywhere but you cannot stay here. [laughter] they worked really hard to say the world is much bigger one -- then where we can from. and we all moved outside of saskatchewan but i am lucky i have parents to push me to do that. people told me i got into the harvard of the north and kudos but it is a very good school and what will use steady? finance do they have a science program? that was the most common reaction because that was just so strange.

so for those buddying and aspiring entrepreneurs in the room i had to do what was different from those around me and then to be ridiculed for it. i ended up working for of any years and then i fell in love with his this i was very good at it but i looked at that foundation mike how to look at the piano or the terms so to get into harvard which is a great school spending that is the great past. >> we both share that our parents are focused on

education. my parents were immigrants arm how hot lines rather did not graduate from college but that was critically important. but actually my parents moved here from montreal they were here from russia and germany but he used to say to me have been all of the world i have already picked the best place to live year ago after do that because we are already here. said he think of the of '50s that is a native company then i get a kick seen that the sign is still there.

but that was a day in the '50s so in some ways i was driven that my mother was a working negative day minimum wage job in the cafeteria and i did not want that for my life. i had to pay my own way that was most of the work but

then they had to find a job a highly sought creative writing major was never. [laughter] so i got the editor will for tandem computers before its went public so my job was to write about the people doing interesting things. ben nye said no one to of employed to do interesting thing. this will not motivate me with everybody getting ahead was an engineer i thought it was titillate for me -- to late for me but it turned out that was the good thing so i went to business school when the and also had a

computer science related column programmer who was my older sibling so we started a company together my second year of business school. in fact, said want to start this company with you in spite of the fact you are getting the mba. [laughter] so much for that degree. >> apologies for those associated with what business school. >> so let's fast-forward to silicon valley you tested on these coast so why can here to start your company? restarted work as a school project i graduated 2009 in

june 2009 linkd in would have been a great job a wonderful outcome but we had this idea that kept gaining steam it was just an idea with a lot of conviction around it so when we decided we would keep working on it people said go appear or to amanda because there is the big serve one negative security environmental we said we have to go to the bay area we knew it would require venture capital and

it was the right choice but in 2009 it was of wonderful to raise.

>> uphill both ways to school. [laughter] >> 2009. oh my god. [laughter] i do not even want to say the year. but to your point is this the right place today i know i am preaching to the acquirer but looked at the statistics last year there was $64 billion of capital invested in united states and 24 billion went to the bay area you are in the right place. the funny thing is i was here but he was not he was a programmer at the world bank and found he was brilliant

and people would come to him all the time with data he would write the programs to crunch the data and he realized really? he had a brilliant idea to abstract the calculations so once he wrote those calculations if you reduce something from zimbabwe or another country it is the same formula then he thought i could do this on the so he wrote the program table maker. >> guest: did to be the

ceo he wanted me to do everything else. so for the first couple of years we started out here i ran it out here while he was in washington d.c. during the programming. it was interesting because i hope i have the empowering story but i told somebody with the historic the company with my brother and she said what is your title going to be? i said i would be the vp she said you should be the ceo. i said my brother wrote the program. she said first of all, your brother wants to code and you will be the person of their selling and get the

contracts people always want to talk to the highest level if you carry that title that is way more powerful so count how many female ceos there are in silicon valley. we stopped after one. you have no money for marketing basso bogan that gets attention. i said those are interested in ideas i will read this but my brother and he is super logical said those are great reasons. okay. that is hell i became the ceo of the company. and those were found dead reasons. so i remain 14 years. it is interesting he agreed

with me. >> they explore sharing those stories. can you pick out a the hiatus and lows of your first years and that euphoria of the roller-coaster? >> matches hour by hour. [laughter] those first couple of years the highest and the of close over such a short period of time you just come home at the end of the day but then five more times during the

day but six taught -- six years later we still have them they are just much more stretched out. if nobody knows who you are we had nobody to knew who we were. their lots of things but that was not one of them. but nobody knows who they were. except linkd in we found a systems engineer background and leave message him and we said we met with him and he

may have been employed as the of web developer but he ended up joining the ken as he did not know he believed and was so excited we are still very good friends and he stayed six years and also to common joining us was such light gave validating type of thing that we are not crazy. . .

early on we registered everything to my business partner, matthew's house. we used his home address and that was a big mistake, because ultimately we used that to do all of our filings because we didn't want to's pay for a po box, which isn't very expensive, it's like $400 a year, but when you are first starting out it's like $400 a year. that ended up costing us because some hackers used his address and bought his social security number online in russia and i promise you all your social security numbers can be bought in russia as well and he ended up getting mysteriously hacked. that was really a very bad day. now, there was a security flaw

in both at&t system and google's e-mail system and we were the unfortunate, we discovered these bugs and had to deal with it and we've since moved on, but it was very stressful that basically someone have hacked into our corporate e-mail because we originally used his home e-mail address. that was a very low .8 i never never thought the website name and now someone has the michelle fan club which i have no affiliation with and it's hard for me to buy back this domain. things like this, thankfully they haven't done anything crazy with it but they could and it causes me great stress. if you're an entrepreneur in the room, buy your domain name, it's $10 a year a year end don't use your home personal address for anything.

>> 14 years of being a ceo, the same thing. so many, like every day is drama if i were to characterize them i would say, for me, weirdly, the highs are product related. it's shipping a product, i remember walking down the street in paris when you put stuff in boxes and shifted around the world and being in hong kong and seeing our packages in windows at computer retailers, that was super exciting. we won some awards and we would see a review numbers go up, we would get thankful, grateful customers would send us things. the personal computer back in the 80s was a very personal, people would name them and love them and if you're product ended up doing something great they

would ship you things like this avocado farmer sent us a box full of avocados as a thank you for doing something, and so to me, a lot of the highs were feeling that we had made people's lives better with the thing we invented. how would say the lowes word, there were two forms of low, one was running out of money, that sucks. another was running out of money and doing anything to keep that company alive. that company is more important than anything you would be willing to cut your credit cards and borrow money and sleep on couches and go without pay. my cofounder went without pay for six months, it's not like we could afford it, it's just that we had to. the pressure to get to the next level and fund ourselves, we always survived those things, thankfully