the internet caucus. we'll hear from congressman greg walton at 1:00 eastern and commissioner robert mcdowell and later this afternoon another sec commissioner, jessica rosenworsel. >> hello, welcome. everybody. welcome to the 14th annual state of the net conference. thank you all for coming. some of you have been here 14 years in a row and i appreciate a lot of you have been here for a good many number of those years and i want to thank you as well. this year has been really an interesting year. not only in, you know, national affairs, but also in internet policy. it's been a really, really, really interesting convulsive, a different year and a lot of things have changed. and we're really excited and we put together a group, a great group of speakers here to talk about a lot of those seismic

changes that have happened to us and our policy the last year and also kind of scope out what we think this year is going to look like and that's kind of the point. state of the net in january. my name is tim lorden and i'm part of organization sponsored by jerry who founded this organization, you'll hear from at lunch and founded the concept much the state of the net and i want to thank jerry. [applause] >> jerry is a giant in the space and we're happy to have him back. he'll be introducing the congressman later in the program and you'll hear from him. normally it snows before state of the net and we're expecting snow tomorrow and i'll thrilled about that and the people that can organize the state of the union can deal with that, but today, we have good weather and we're thrilled to have a great lineup of speakers. just really quickly, i want to thank our sponsors. you can see some of them on the screens around you. they include comcast nbc

universal, we also have facebook, we have verizon and they'll be rotating throughout the day and thank the internet sponsor, the worldwide live stream for this as well and thanks to folks from c-span to live stream this on their channel. we're thrilled to have people kind of tuning into this. the hash tag today, it's the twitter account. as far as the conference goes it's our 14th annual and we did a walk through with the security team from some of the speakers last week, and the security, this is the 14th annual and i said yes. it started in 2006 and he said, what did you talk about in internet policy back in 2006? and i had to think, you know, before the iphone and a lot of the issues that we're grappling with today, but it's been so much fun to be involved in these issues and so exciting.

and things totally new and scary and i'm thrilled to be a part of it. but, let's get going. we have an agenda in your bag, so, it lists everything that we have. we have key notes. we'll move from this room to room upstairs and back into this room and breakouts and back in this room. bear with us as we scuffle around. and let me introduce our first speaker, senator amy klobuchar. she has a rising as far as tackling some of the toughest issues we're dealing with internet policy and democracy and internet expression and we're thrilled to have her with us today, she's the sponsor of the honest ads act in the united states senate and again, she's a leader on these issues and we expect to hear a lot more from her. let me women to the stage, senator amy klobuchar. [applause] >> well, thank you, everyone,

i heard the discussion of the weather and when you're from minnesota, you get going. i will note about a month ago, it was 38 below zero without wind chill in minnesota and that a few years ago, it was colder in minnesota than it was on mars for one day. you can google it. it happened. the range rover was in a cold-- a warm part of mars and we scored colder and now all of those people are coming for the super bowl next weekend. and i talked to someone from our staff in minnesota and go, we're already ready to do the dog sledding and the ski thing, we're going to do all this. he goes, senator, it's going to be a little cold. so watch out for this. so, i am very excited to speak here and you know that tomorrow night we're going to hear the state of the union, but i'm just as excited to give my first state of the net. and i think there will be a few differences in our speeches, so i'm very excited to be on

c-span 3. so we won't try to compete in that way. but i also think there may be some differences in terms of some of the focuses that i have and that i think we need to be talking about as a country. and i want to thank the internet education foundation and all the groups that made this really important conference possible. while i'm not focusing on the issues in my speech i was asked to talk about some of our security issues. you know, there are major issues of net neutrality that we're dealing with right now and there are also big issues with broadband. i'm in a state that has a lot of rural areas and i'm one of the founders of our rural broadband caucus in the senate. we even have our own logo, that's very unique in the senate and we've got a goodbye partisan group. i was disappointed we weren't able to take some of that overseas money and put it into

infrastructure, which would have included rural broadband and all broadband, but we will live to fight another day. and i think between the universal service fund and some of the other ways we can find funding, we really have to up our game because we've got, you know, farmers that are doing their business in the mcdonald's parking lot. my favorite story recently was an oncologist who goes to parking lot of a restaurant when he can't get to the hospital to do his work for his patients. so we need to see some improvement. i will say in addition to being cold, my state is really focused on technology. we are the state that brought the world everything from the pop-up toaster to the pacemaker. we invented the black box flight recorder and even the first super computer. so i would say, #you're welcome. and so, we do a lot of things in the midwest that don't

always get recognized in the tech area. that's continued to be a major part of our economy. we have 17 fortune 500 companies, we have a lot of small thriving businesses, which is a big part of it as well. and so, in that way, the internet has been really important to me. and the reason i got involved in some of this, i'd say there's a few reasons that i did. the first is that i am the daughter of a reporter. my dad spent his whole career, he's now 90 years old or will be 90 next month. i started with the ap, and actually in 1960 was the one that called the race for kennedy. there were three states out, illinois, minnesota and california and he knew how northern minnesota, my relatives were all iron range, iron ore miners would vote and he called it and the guy from the ap said i have two words for you guys in minnesota, be right and they were.

and so, he literally interviewed everyone from ginger rogers to mike ditka, the famous coach for the bears to ronald reagan. so that's deep in my roots, is free press and free information and accurate information. so, that's what brings me to this issue at my core. the second reason i'm so interested in this is that i've spent eight years as the lead prosecutor in a county about a quarter of our state's population. and i did a lot with white collar and making sure that we have an even playing field when it came to criminal enforcement and i say that not to scare everyone, but more to make the case that i would look at things and it didn't matter if someone committed a crime with a crowbar or a crime with a computer. it's still a crime and that our laws have to be as sophisticated as those that are

breaking them. which, of course, applies to everything from intellectual property theft to what we're seeing across the world right now with the interference in our elections. and the third way i come at this election, this issue, i'm thinking about this in the car on the way over, is that i campaigned, i have run for office and most importantly, i have run for office from a position are not having personal wealth. in moo i first race for the county attorney job, chief prosecutor, i was outspent three to one, something like that, four to one, i could only run ads on cable and no one hardly had cable. i remember the day of the election. my opponent was running it on tv ads. >> that was before computer ads. i was the first to put an ad on the newspaper website, a big deal at the time.

because we had so little money looking at ways that would be cheap and so, i was on cable and i remember some guy called in, a very close race, running against a congressman's sister, our republican congressman's sister and the guy called into one of the radio station, that amy klobuchar, she has ads op constantly. and he said, do you only listen to espn. i had black and white ads on one thing so i knew what that was like. i ended up winning by less than nine votes per precinct in this county, two congressional districts. i did it not only that way, but by putting up 3000 lawn signs, being in 29 parades, and doing 85 pancake breakfasts, okay? like if i'd done 70, i would have lost. i bring this up, there's a reason for this and that's because i have a firm belief in grass roots politics and an even playing field and i ran for senate, it was even more pronounced because i was

running against, again, a sitting congressman for the u.s. senate, and i had never raised more than $500 per person. and so, i suddenly was calling everyone and no one would return my call, they couldn't say my name, didn't know who i was. i finally gave up, this is a very true story and i used my own personal at the time roledex, remember when we had those, and i called everyone i ever knew in my life and this is a true story, i still have the record, i raised $17,000 from exboyfriends. [laughte [laughter] as my husband has pointed out, it's not an expanding base. why does this matter? well, it matters because i'm obsessed with having fairness in campaigns, that's why i hated the citizen's united decision. that's why i don't like all of this dark money that's behind the scenes. i want to have transparency and the final reason and i'll get to what i want to talk about so you know where i'm coming from, why i have such a passion for

this, is because i'm from minnesota and we have the highest voting turnout in the country. and we tend to really like fairness and transparency and some of it is our scandanavian tradition and so when you see this kind of shenanigans and that's like a minnesota nice word for like basically fraud and basically criminal activity, influencing elections, you have a real problem on your hands. and if we want to guarantee the right for free elections, we're going to have to do something about this. and i kind of put it in two prongs. one i'm going to more focus on today, but the first is the election infrastructure and senator langford and i have a bill along with senator harris and lindsey graham, focused on putting about $400 million we found a way to pay for it with leftover grant money into our state election infrastructure.

and you look at how much money that is. that's 3% of one aircraft carrier. okay? and so, when we are spending this much money on our national defense, the fact that we are being outspent and outdone on the internet when it comes to protecting our democracy in this greatest country that's developed all of these incredible technologies and the internet itself, that is a problem. so that's why i think as we look at our own national security priorities and we look at protecting our elections, we have to start seeing our election infrastructure as a major part of that. so, what's happening? well, according to our own department of homeland security, russians attempted to hack at least 21 states election systems in 2016. russia also launched cyber attacks against the u.s. voting software company and hacked the e-mails of more than 100 local election officials.

and last september, the chicago board of elections reported that names, addresses, birth dates and other sensitive information of tens of thousands of registered voters were exposed. but they didn't just try to hack into our election system, as you all know. they also launched an extended and sophisticated information war designed to to divide our countries and america's political system. as sort of a perfect round as we go into this rather, which for me has been a rather tumultuous year for me. almost a year ago on the inaugural stage i was replaced by the most slovenian melania trump. she was born an hour away from our relatives and as i say every time i look at her, it's like looking in the mirror.

[laughter] >> in addition to that and that year my actual end of the year of 2016 was spent with john mccain, we're hoping, hope it's very difficult situation, with john and lindsey graham, on the front line with the ukrainian troops in the middle of the night on new year's eve. which one do you kiss, but-- there we were and we'd also visited lithuania, latvia, astona and georgia. and to hear the stories of what they've been dealing with for years, democrats on the foreign relations committee just put out a report on this, which is no surprised based on what we've heard. and we've heard it before. they get mad at astona, russia does, and what do they do, they cut off their internet because they moved a statue of a russian soldier from a public square into a cemetery where the other statues like that were. or in one of the countries that

was either latvia or lithuania, when they are having their 25th anniversary of independence, so they invite some of the ukrainian parliamentarians who are of course in exile from crima, they invite that to the celebration and cut off the internet and russia gets mad of the parliamentarianions from that country. this kind of stuff has been going on for a long time. the fake ads. when we heard directly in munich a few months later, the prime minister told us that directly, that the russians had been mad at norway because they've been building up their military and they ran fake ads. one of the fake ads, was that norway's economy was tanking and they were running out of fruits and vegetables in the entire country of norway. as a result all of the these

russians who had seen it on tv. coming in norway with their relatives with bags and bags of fruits and vegetables. i love at that story, it's not just a political intrigue story, it can hit people directly as they try to understand what this fake news is really about. so, in the u.s., so i go back to that story and i remember that time with that blizzard coming at us as we're standing there with president poroshenko to show our american might to the russians and to putin directly, and you know, he's got the machine guns he gives to mccain, he gave lindsey a pistol and gave me two daggers and that's a whole other story, we had to show up and show our american might, right? that we're protecting our internet and a beacon of democracy because we have a free and fair election and we know how to handle this. what we've learned since we really didn't know how to handle it. it was not just the hacking, which we have since learned

which took way too long to tell our state election officials about, but it's also about the very essence of american political campaigns, which is how you communicate. do you have an even playing field. that's what all our laws are set up. but they're not great because there's dark money going on, but when you put ads out, you have to have disclaimers and disclosures. russia spent $100,000 in rubles on facebook ads to influence the 2016 election. we know that the disinformation reached more than 126 million americans. we know that russia has a troll factory that employs nearly 1,000 agents, many of whom who work 12 hour shifts and expect today make hundreds of comments on social media and make comments that are divisive, all of it fake, bank roled by

president putin. we know there's a lot of fake things, fake tans, fake wrestling, fake tv, and when we've got something that's a whole other thing dealing with fake political ads. the ones we showed at the judiciary hearing that directed people to text their votes in, that happened in america. right? we have those ads that were put out on social media over and over again, that said hey, don't deal with the lines, just text in your vote for hillary, here is the texting number. >> that's criminal, that's criminal. if we could have caught the people that did that because that's a direct interference with the election. former director of national intelligence, james clapper, testified last year that russia will continue to interfere in our political system. he said this, i believe russia is now emboldened to continue

such activities in the future, both here and around the world, and to do it even more intensely. so that next election is 281 days away from today. and that is why james langford and i are working so hard to try to get that funding out that, and so that's the first bill i want to mention to you guys. 386 million for election security. it also requires information to go to state election officials and so that there are certain people in each state that would have a security clearance so they could receive that information. do you know that that issue about the 21 states, my state didn't find out until it went public that they had tried to hack into our state. i didn't know it. i have ben talking about this issue for months. we didn't know it and in the case of illinois, they got right into the voter security. we have support for this bill from the freedom caucus.

go figure, and in the house mark meadows is carrying a similar version, actually the identical bill to one that i had done with lindsey, that is the very-- it's a little bit different than the one that senator langford and i have. and both those bills are named at this because there's concern on the left and on the right that if you have a hack somewhere, when you have dozens and dozens of states that haven't updated their election infrastructure equipment in the past decade, do you think that russia doesn't know that? >> well, they do know that. i'm not disclosing some secret. when you have that going on and you have something like 10 or 12 states that don't even have backup paper ballots, right? so there's no way to audit it afterwards. what the bill does, let's get some money out to the states. let's make sure the information is shared from homeland security and the third thing, let's have auditing so if something does go wrong, you

have a way to prove it. minnesota is unique, you have a lot of recounts and close elections and the way you do that, of course, when you're trying to check out a close election or if there have been some kind of fraud, is by having the backup paper ballots. so, those are the components of the bill and it's something that we'd like to get done. okay, secondly, and this is the honest ads bill that i was mentioning here. so, we have some kind of well-known hearings that went on on this and the facts that we do know, 1.4 billion was spent on on-line ads in 2016, nearly eight times the amount that was spent in 2012. everyone agrees this trend will continue, whether it's up to 3 billion, 4 billion. we don't know that in 2018, but those are the kind of projections that we're seeing, that there's going to be a lot of migration of campaign money over to the social media side. a pew poll found that 65% of

americans use the internet in 2016 for election related information. on-line platforms are dwarfing on-line satellite and cable. and the largest cable provider has 22 million subscribers, and that's why when we look at our election laws, they were all designed back at the time where it was print and it was radio and it was tv. right? so, that is why we want to upgrade them. that's what the honest ads act is about that i introduced with senator mccain and senator warner. to me, it's simply creating this even playing field and sending a message know the just russia, to all of these countries across the world, that we see this as a priority for our national security, which is protecting our longstanding freedom to vote and freedom to have fair elections. so, you think about this, this is not like sharing a cat video

or an snl skit with your co-worker, right? these are actual paid political ads. will it get at all of our problems? of course it won't get at all of our problems, it won't get to the bot issues or some other things that i just talked about. it will at least get to some of the problems, that's the paid political ads. so, that's why i asked you to look at this bill. i know that facebook, twitter, google have taken some measures, which we appreciate, to upgrade their policies and have called this out as a problem from back in the last election. but i believe the only way you're going to make this work is if you apply this across the board. so it's not just one company doing one thing, another company taking this measure, and i ask when some of the companies at the hearings said, well, this will be really difficult for us to follow this kind of law, remember what the law says now for print radio and tv. it says that if you have a cad

kd and some provided said they will put disclosures on or if you have an ad of national legislative importance, then you have to have the disclaimer, you know, prepare to pay for it by amy klobuchar or whatever it is, but you have to have the disclosure. that means the candidates and the press will see what these ads are. they won't just pop up on a facebook page for one day or an hour and then go away so no one knows that they existed. and so the answer we got, was, well, that will be hard to figure out what those ads are. my radio station in river falls in minnesota can figure that out and put it out and on-line. i believe the greatest companies in america should be able to figure out just like our radio station does. like the minneapolis star tribune does, just like the network tv do or cable tv,

they're able to figure out what those ads are. they get a lawyer's opinion and know what the ads are. that's the same thing that we have to do tore paid political ads on the internet. it's one step towards protecting our elections and i am just hopeful that people will see the light here and we'll be able to get it done. i will close with the reminder of what's at stake and why we can't wait to act. in 1923, many years before the internet, even before sputnik and our race with russia to space, josef stalin and general secretary of the soviet communists was asked about a vote in the central committee of the party. stalin was unconcerned about the vote. after all, he explained that who voted was completely unimportant. what was extraordinarily important, he said, was who would count the votes and how. and it is now 95 years later

and sometimes it seems like we are back at square one, and now, we have the russians again trying to, in my mind, influence who votes by suppressing votes, by putting these ads out, and also, possibly who counts the votes, as in our voting infrastructure. we literally having them trying to attack us on both ends. and we know they are not our only threat throughout the 21st century. our adversaries will be there and we need to protect against threats no matter where they come from. nothing, i make this case strongly despite everything you hear, nothing could be less partisan than securing the future of our elections and the freedoms that those elections preserve. it was marco rubio who said during this last election, you know, one time they're going after one party and one

candidate, and the next time it will be the other candidate and the other party. i kind of like quoting stalin and then quoting marco rubio, i thought you would-- i'll tell him that today. i thought he would enjoy that. and so, whether you are a four-star general, a fourth grader or a computer engineer at four square, this is an issue that unites all of us because protecting our democracy and allowing technology to flourish go hand in hand. the freedom to speak, the freedom to vote, to participate freely is closely intertwined. not just with who we are as americans in our hearts, the daughter of a newspaper reporter, it is also about how our economy works and how we innovate and how we move forward as a nation. this will be the true measure of the state of the internet. this year and the years to come. it is whether or not we can make sure, yes, it is available

to all, but also, whether it it continues to enhance our freedoms and not limit our freedoms. that's what i hope you think about as you hear all the presentations today. that the internet that's done so well for so long, it should be used for truth and to shine a light and it should be used to ensure that american people get more information, accurate information to choose their leaders and their government and their own future. so, thank you very much, enjoy the event and i really appreciate being able to launch you off today. thank you. [applaus [applause] >> hello, everyone.

it is my pleasure and my privilege to be up here at this podium at the internet education foundation's 14th annual state of the net conference. my name is emery rone, a fellow at the internet law frame work for early career professionals, started by our parent organization and i'm here to interview-- right, i'm in the other room next to c-span we'll be pulling down panelists throughout the day and talking about what is the most important issues facing the state of the net. i hope to speak with as many of you as possible that sit on all the panels. as you know, we have fascinating topics and incredible speakers and the state of the net has never been more important than it is right now. with that in mind, i'd like to bring to the stage the astandpoint secretary, and

david rhettle. [applause] >> well, thanks for that introduction and it's great to be here again at the state of the net. and especially thank you for inviting me and congratulations on the exciting program you've put together again this year. i'd like to two items on the agenda quick, that stands out to me. the excellent cyber security pan panel, and a discussion between rob mcdowell and my former boss chairman greg walton. both things i'm looking forward to later in the day. for my time i'd like to layout early international priorities in the new administration. we plan to be aggressive in advocating interest in values in our engagement across the globe at i can, itu and others. and discuss the department of commercial cyber security work to improve the security net of

things and administration's plan to counter the threat of bot nets. the internet has become what it is today in part because of a longstanding bipartisan concensus of multi-stakeholder policy making and development. the idea that all should participate in transparent decision making process. we must continue to fight for this principle and for an internet that's golf vens between collaboration between all stake holders. right now, ntia has two priorities. the preservation of the who is service, one of the pressing issues related to icahn the last several months. if you don't know much about the service, it's a valuable actual for governments, businesses, intellectual property rights holders and internet users around the world. put simply, who is it the service provides easily accessible information about entities that purchase and manage domain names. this information is often the starting point for law enforcement agencies when investigating malicious on-line

activity and for private sector and government actors seeking to protect critical systems from dangerous cyber attacks, which are becoming more frequent all the time. bot nets, we know those rely on who is to do their work effectively. who is, valuable is information for safe have i internet consumers making sure the website they're using is legitimate. it's a simple service, but it's the cornerstone of trust and accountability on the internet. those of you who participate in ican know who is is under constant review for years and essential character has not changed much since its inception in the early '80s. the utility remains critically important for those who rely upon it. the last few months the service of essential character has been threatened. in response to the european union's general data protection regulation, ican assessed the

rule and given limited personal information for users who register internet domaindomains. >> many european officials have noted only limited changes to who is would be necessary to achieve gdpr compliance. still there are some who are trying to take advantage of the situation by arguing that we should erect barriers to the quickly and easily accessible who is information. and some have argued the service must go dark and become a relic of the internet history. today i'd like to be clear, the who is service can and should retain its essential character while complying with national security laws. for anyone in the u.s. who may be persuaded by those calling for drastic change. the second area is the itu's

treaty making conference, the plenty pod as we love to call it scheduled for this october. i believe the united states needs to press for change in the itu, including establishing effective membership oversight over the finances. this is particularly important given the united states is currently one of the two largest donors to the union, an and we need to fight against efforts to an i -- aggressive effort to move it beyond and know cyber security matters. we need an itu in the area of radio communications and fosters, rather than hinders policies for telecom, particularly in developing countries. as many of you know, the itu has five positions. deputy general and direct general and i'm supporting doreen more contin--

martin. it brings connectivity to parts of the world that has societal benefits. and martin is a veteran of the process and i'm certain that doreen would make an outstanding director of the sector. working with the international internet community there are four parts that we think are parn. first is free flow of information. second is multi-state government governance. the free flow of information on line is a principle and basic human rights. governors around the world are inincreasely curtailing on-line freedoms or shutting down the internet. in other case, top down heavy handed intergovernmental regulation of the internet. in the past two years we've

seen links that forced america companies to remove information that would have been considered protected speech in the united states. these sorts of restrictions threaten economic growth and the societal and educational benefits of the internet and must be opposed. the second focus area, how can they continue to support the approach. and what should the priorities be within ican. any other domain names in pursuit? these are the kind of questions we want to hear from our stake holders on and we plan to continue our longstanding engagement in the internet governance forum at the united nations. premier forum of multi-state dialog on internet policy issues. there's always room for improvement. we'll see challenges that they face, how we can raise national awareness about the contribution to internet governance globally and what we can do to help lower barriers to participation.

third, we want to know how to leverage ntia's resources to shore up on-line resources and privacy. i'll speak more about the cyber security work in a moment. identify departments where it can be more impactful. and also, seek to put the department's work on emerging technology. congress led the u.s. government when it comes to emerging technologies, but that needs leadership from the industry and from all of you. to ensure that american entrepreneurs are able to take risks and find global markets for digital products and services we need to make sure we are charting the right path. and such issues as artificial intelligence, we're looking for industry to help us make the right choices in the government. as i noted cyber security is a key priority for department of commerce and for the administration. last may the president issued an order on the networks and

critic critical infrastructure. and bot net attacks can be extremely damaging and put the broader internet at risk, as well as its users. the department of commerce and department of homeland security, look at stake holders. earlier this month the department issued a draft report against bot nets. we're live on an open and transparent process to generate ideas on the report and i want to thank those who participated. the report outlines the future and five goals to improve the resiliency of the internet and supportive activities for the government and private sector actors. bot net attacks are a global problem. no single government or sector can solve it in isolation. really, any solution will require the entire eco system acting in concert. we're not starting from

scratch. there are tools to mitigate, but they're not widely used. changing this will require changing air awareness and market incentive that will find a sweet spot between security and convenience. behind the scenes there was a lot of collaboration between various government agencies as this report was drafted. we now know there's a common understanding where we need to do and where we need to go to make this positive feature a reality. if you haven't i encourage you to read the report and please provide feedback. you can kind the request for comments on our website and a workshop hosted by the department of conference and congress will incorporate comments received in their report before delivering it to the president in may. as a side note, i'd like to express how proud i am of the work for everybody on this report. it was an effort that took a lot of doing by folks across all different agencies and as the one who's now getting to see the fruits of their labor

as the administrator, i'm incredibly proud of the hard work they've done and how they put together a quality product. in a parallel effort. congress has been trying to foster an internet of things. and there were a series of documents on security and some great process came out of that. high level specification of a high level security update and suggestion how manufacturers can go to the consumers. promoting the ideas in those documents. this year we'll be working on software components, and focus on those third party components. most software is not written completely from scratch, but con modules from the open source and market world.

in a marketplace it can be a channel to attract the use of all of those separate components. the growth of the internet makes this challenge all the more difficult. in addition to the increased number of devices, more traditional vendors are assuming the role of software developers to add smart features or connectivity to existing products. while the majority of libraries and components do not have known vulnerabilities, but some do. the sheer quantity of software mean that product will ship with vulnerabilities or out of date components. transparency can be an important tool. it can help developers know how to respond during an incident. after all, you can't protect what you don't know about. finally, with roux he inspect to 5-g last year the president made it clear that 5-g security is a critical element of our national security. with the internet of things, bringing security in both the device and the network itself

will be important to ensuring not only our national leadership in wireless, but ensuring access to a vital part of our national economy. ntia will work with our colleagues across the federal government to coordinate a national strategy, and we'll work with the private sector to assure the standards process for 5-g promotes our national interest and security. today's conference is a good opportunity to reflect on what issues matter to you most. everyone here today has perspective that can enrich the work that ntia is doing and we encourage you to reach out to the staff here throughout the day and have conversations about the things you think we should be working on. we want to hear from you, we want to know what you think is important and we want to be able to help the industry continue to thrive. thanks for your time. [applaus

[applause] >> good morning. my name is rachel decost. i am the director of the congressional app challenge. it's a national contest which encourages kids to learn to code and create apps. in the past three years on behalf of congress we've inspired over 8,000 students in 42 states to learn to code and we're building the pipeline of domestic coders for the-- who will be equipped with the sk skills required for the jobs of the future. so i'm here to introduce homeland security deputy secretary elaine duch. she was previously acting secretary of homeland security

from july to december of last year. she's an accomplished public servant with over three decades and experience, and deputy secretary duch has served as member of homeland security advisory council and strategic advisor to government tech and services coalition. so, please welcome secretary-- sorry, deputy secretary duch. [applaus [applause] >> good morning, everyone. it's really an honor to be here at state of the net. it is though, a little funny for me when i think about being here speaking in front of this group that are here for this state of the net conference. i am a grandmother who likes jane austin novels and just had

a twitter account last week. and i'll see where we are with the state of the net and dhs, hopefully useful to those of you in the room today. but this, as everyone points out, everyone is an internet stake holder, even if they don't know it yet. i'm learning it more and more each day and that's what brings me here today, how the internet has increasingly connecting us with our threats in homeland security. specifically terrorists are using the internet to recruit and radicalize and share information for do it yourself mass murder. nearly every terrorist plot we uncover today has a digital dimension. to give you a sense of the scale of that problem, the fbi says they're currently 1,000 homegrown terrorist investigations across the 50 states and 1,000 isis-related investigations.

some of these overlap, but still, the scale is alarming and those are just the suspects we know about. it's like living among potentially land mines. in both the recent terrorist attack in new york, the attempted port authority bus station bomber and the halloween attack with the rental truck, the attack er ray peer to be inspired by on-line terrorist propaganda. ... internet itself is not the problem. terrorist do social media for the same reason anyone uses social media. it's an easy way to get connected. the technology that's helping businesses thrive and businesses stay in touch is the same technology that's helping

terrorists conspire at broadband speeds. you can think of it like fire. fire can temperature dinner or waterhouse. it can also in both communities and leave lifelong scars like it just recently did in california. it's important to note also that the internet itself does not cause radicalization though it does appear to service catalysts. internet and mobile communications technology just make the radicalization process faster and easier, and can accelerate the path to violence. while isis isn't the first or only terrorist group to have online, their groundbreaking use of open social media platforms has forced all of us to confront the challenging issues with clear eyes if there are a lot of thorny issues with combining, combating violent radicalization online here issues surrounding the terms of service, content

removal versus monitoring, the role of private companies and confronting this national security problem, and the role of the government in challenging terrorist narratives. these issues are further complicated as terrorists move from open channels to encrypted or closed ones. before we think what we can do to combat terrorist use of internet we have to acknowledge three fax. the first is the legal framework of the united states and the constitution that we in the federal government has sworn to protect and defend. in the united states, ideology, regardless of the cause of support is protected by the first amendment. congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or that of the press. in practice that means merely advocating political or social positions, strong rhetoric or

the philosophic embrace of violent tactics may be protected by the constitution. just looking at isis propaganda or visiting a neo-nazi website does not constitute a legal activity in our country -- illegal. of course while the government may not be able to take action against specific content, this does not preclude social media companies from taking action. the second fact is that current removal is a short-term and difficult system to automate when your target liberates at high volume and at constantly changing media speed. around the world internet users upload more than 400 hours of content every minute. that's a lot to sift through for our companies. additionally, two-thirds of the terrorist content is we shared within the first two hours of its lifecycle. the good news here is that the

government and technologies are developing tools that automatically detect and flag terrorist content, and there are indications that technical solutions will be among the most effective ways to manage the volume. however, as extremist groups migrate to encrypted messaging platforms, monitoring becomes more difficult. so while the content removal is an important part of the response, it cannot be the entire response. the third fact is that any long-term response must acknowledge that there are various audiences at play and each a different information needs. some individuals are already mobilized to violence. some are radicalized but have not yet taken steps towards violence. other people want to actively refute terrorist propaganda. and then there's the majority of people just want to go about their daily lives without the threat of terrorism. there is no one answer, there is

no one silver bullet. but we at the department of homeland security are surgically focus on the terrorism prevention trying to prevent and intervene in the process of radicalization. and because so much of the radicalization is tied to the internet and because internet knows no borders, , where activy trying to prevent both international and domestic terrorists from radicalizing and recruiting people to violence. through social media, social science research and the whole body of knowledge we know that it's not a linear process. there are number of root causes and drivers. domestically, we've approached terrorism prevention in a range of ways. today i'm here to tell you a little bit about how we tried to challenge terrorist narratives, share information and catalyze nongovernment solutions. first, challenging notice. the response details directly or providing alternative options.

through the internationally recognized private-public partnership known as peer-to-peer, counting extremism program we've engaged with young people internationally. peer to peer challenge teams as students from colleges and universities to develop and implement social media programs targeting the narrative and online recruiters of violent extremism. we recognize the need for more space comes when july the department of homeland security office of terrorism and prevention partnerships awarded to grants, 26 grants to community-based organizations. at least have a dozen of the awardees will have a robust online presence including pushing back against the messages of isis and other terrorist recruiters and radical lasers. for example, one project is developing an application that will put high-quality video editing tools, digital marketing

and relevant research findings on radicalization and equipment in the hands of thousands. this will help make the creation of countermessages of viral practice and will add to the peer to peer work that i mentioned earlier. while we are limited what we can do domestically in the counter narrative space, countering narratives is an important part of our terrorism prevention strategy. i'm excited to see the grant awardees moved ideas from application into action and monitoring the results. our second broad category of terrorist prevention is information sharing, and dhs has done a lot of work in this space over the last year. we want to expand understanding of violent radicalism and terrorist recruitment so more people can identify it, and more importantly, where people can prevent it. this includes tools such as

developing social media community awareness briefings to help technology sector become aware of terrorist recruitment online so they can catalyze efforts to counter it. it also includes conferences such as the digital forum on terrorism prevention that dhs cosponsored last september. at the digital forum experts from government, the tech industry, maybe many of you, startups and community organizations gathered together to share information and showcase technologies and techniques to counter the use of terrorist social media. across the u.s. government dhs also administratively houses and interagency task force to increase information sharing on terrorism prevention and with other agencies, including the national counterterrorism center, the fbi and department of justice. that wide range of stakeholders brings me to a third category of prevention, catalyzing

nongovernment solutions. with apologies to the state of the net i want to paraphrase your motto. have you went as a terrorism prevention stakeholder, even if they don't know it yet. we believe that, combining the talent of communities, ngos and the technology sector we can drive nongovernmental responses to just recruitment and radicalization that are authentic, more scalable and more sustainable. we can create and disseminate more powerful counter narratives and alternative narratives. the truth is that government doesn't have great credibility in the online space, for good reasons i believe it we are too old, too big and too square. we need credible voices especially from our community partners. so it's important that we help empower those groups with the information, hardships and resources they need to be successful. this is not a fight dhs odious government can win on its own.

our enemies are dispersed and they are crowdsourcing their activities. fortunately, our allies are fighting with us in the same space. in the past year there has been tremendous progress, particularly in the technology center. last july the united kingdom home secretary and i travel to silicon valley to meet with the newly launched global internet forum on counterterrorism, or gis ct, it is led by facebook, microsoft, youtube and twitter is the first time major companies have come together to work on research and technology techniques in this area. moreover, they are committed to helping smaller companies that may not have the same resources to tackle terrorism prevention online. i am very, very encouraged by the work of gisct to counter this incredibly dangerous problem. we hope our companies will

consider engaging with us to help stop terrorism here and abroad, because terrorist radicalization makes the world a more dangerous place for each one of us. we also know that other countries share our concern. at the 72nd night of nations general assembly this year, uk prime minister, italian prime minister and a french president addressed world leaders on this topic along with our acting deputy secretary of the time. and in october i join my international counterpart at the g7 meeting in italy to discuss how to prevent terrorist use of the internet with the participation of the private sector, private sector and interesting enough private sector attended with us. this this is a true government private industry collaboration in countering terrorism on the internet. secretary nielsen is continued this robust engagement and soon shall be traveling to silicon

valley for a second meeting with gisct along with uk home secretary. we were also cohost the second digital form on terrorism prevention, also in silicon valley in figure eight. some of the topics on the agenda will be innovations encounter messaging, content takedown at online to off-line interventions. the third item is important because it's not enough to push back against terrorist messaging request to ensure organizations are trying to develop off ramps for people at risk for radicalization to mobilization to violence. these offerings need to be developed in partnership with local organizations mirroring methods proven immolating fields like domestic violence and suicide prevention. as i said before, we the government cannot do this alone. i'm very proud of the role dhs has played in terrorism prevention so far, encountering

terrorists but i work in your work is not yet done. preventing terrorism will remain forward mission of the department but we are very interested in working with partners such as you from all corners of the world to make it a safer place for each one of us. help us, please work with us. i know that our members of my staff from office of terrorism prevention partnerships you today. they are raising their hands and anxious to hear from you throughout the conference, and let us know. michael brown raised his hand from the task force. i don't mean to frighten you but please believe me when i tell you this is urgent. each morning we sit to our intelligence briefing and either today with urgency and a purpose. right now in some dark corner of the internet that are step-by-step instructions on how to build a bomb with items you can pick up any hardware store. right now a terrorist recruiter with hate in his heart is

feeding lies to a confused teenager. right now someone in the country is being tested, due to become a soldier for the caliphate, or do they turn away? working together we can change the outcome and we can change lives. we are all terrorist prevention stakeholders, even if we don't know it yet. thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> welcome. brief intermission. after next set of speakers will break for coffee and then come right back here to see chairman goodlatte. let me just have my board member, rebecca arbogast from comcast-nbc introduce our next set of speakers, so thank you.

>> thanks, tim. so i am very happy to be a today to introduce amy webb. her title as i understand his quantitative futurist so she totally has the most interesting title of anybody in this room. she founded the future debate institute and she teaches at nyu stern school of business where she studies how technology and science will disrupt business and ignite geopolitical change. where she guides universities, and it's incumbent on how to navigate that change. she explores a range of intriguing ideas like what she calls quote, they're an equal codebase, as safeguards against the dangers of online bias. she is also an accomplished author. her most recent book teaches us how to think like a futurist and not to distinguish the real

trends from the merely united states. it was selected as one of fast companies best books. a brave soul, anyone's chronicler think is an online dating on data a love story. as only someone with a degree in game theory might you should create an algorithm for love which led her to the love of her life for those of you who are single you can check out the ted talk on this which got 6 million views. amy will be joined by rob pegoraro, tech policy journalism or yahoo! news. please welcome rob and the woman who was named by forbes as one of the women changing the world through technology, amy webb. [applause] >> good morning. so time for some theory? >> i want to start, a native question but i went to levels

i've heard botnet a lot this morning. as though this is a new phenomenon. sidelight to take you way back to 2011 when we saw the first emergence of botnets throughout current modern social media. in 2014 there was somebody experimenting with something called a random darknet shopper. how many people in this room have heard about the random darknet shopper? so this is a problem. in the year 2014 that botnet was deployed and it wasn't until 2015 that authorities realized that the darknet shopper had bought ecstasy pills and fake punt getting passports. the problem was that there was no case law. there was no policy and no thinking around what do we do. to me this is problematic for two reasons. first, i spoke with several different government agencies including state about the random darknet shopper, and that it

illuminate two very important things. first, there is such a thing as a botnet that will ought to be paying attention to. and second, we don't have any thinking around.net because if they botnet can be deployed to purchase the illegally, that's hard. spreading misinformation is actually pretty easy. we are now at the four-year anniversary of this botnet, and to my knowledge there is no case law, there is no policy, there is no thinking around the future of botnets. and instead i keep hearing plans to fight something that's already happened. this is incredibly important because that technology compared to what's already on the horizon is like child's play. we are entering in an entirely new era of computing, artificial intelligence. this is not code based. it's not a tech trend. it is the third era of computing and the united states not only

does it have any realistic depoliticized policy or thinking around ai and any cohesive way, but we are not pouring money into the field the way that others are around the world. and the problem is that at some point everybody come somebody is going to decide that this is a problem because some of the country has done something that we don't like, energetic and it will wind up being politicized. we don't have an office of technology assessment anymore. even though other countries do around the world, so we have people who are constantly recognizing far too late that a technology may be to behave in a way that we don't like, we don't have any kind of united fought between business and policy. we don't have the funding behind it and then enters into the court of public opinion what nobody is woefully misinformed. and so we are not, you come

looking at you but you are not anticipating what's coming next. that's going to come back and bite us all in ass and was going to become increasingly more uncomfortable. i will just close this by saying, , i get to be a public official whose high ranking who can explain to me what a botnet is. okay? i meet with them all the time. botnets are easy. you can explain what a botnet is. i haven't yet met a person who can explain to me why artificial, what artificial intelligence is, what it is not and why it's important. and so we can talk about it, but like you're just starting this conference tonight and it really concerns that everybody is fired up about technology that is now four years old in terms of wreaking havoc around in a in ways that seems to be surprising people. >> so the couple has been thrown down for the next speaker. you but had some good talking

points. >> but it explained why net neutrality became this crazy juggernaut. explain what everybody is fixated on the future of jobs with regards to ai when that's not the right conversation to be having. it explains why 5g seems to be now maybe part of our national infrastructure. nobody knows. >> so let's talk about, i look at this conference, this agenda to you to go. two utica people talked about social media as it's the new public square. people like might interest in mind one another. now the discussion is more you wrote everything, history will not be kind to you. what with the trends we missed two years ago we should've maybe you saw them, i know i did did not see them. >> share. in my world, technology trend is not united states. these are fundamental shift in human behavior. they are all data-driven. you know, and, you know, the

reason that i think we keep missing things is because america has become a nation of, when i think about the future. i i should mention that i am politically independent. but our current administration is obviously, you know, backwards thinking and antagonistic towards technology and science. the problem is that we are already late to the playing field. where very far behind china in some key areas of development. where behind, and that's a problem. where behind rush in some areas, he technological development. and not only, we have three more years of not getting ourselves caught up, right? and this is a critical time. the next ten years are a big period of transition. this is the beginning of the end of smart phones. this is the beginning of the end

of confrontational technologies, so sort of the standard types of computers were all used to. while we're busy looking backwards and fighting yesterdays squabbling over yesterdays news, anybody else's moving forward. not only are they moving forward in some key areas of technology but there are new alliances being built. the fact that china could emerge as the global leader, you know, in environmental technologies i think it's fascinating. >> they could stand to progress on that from some of the skies i've seen. >> sure. >> jamaican 5g. let's let's give it to that since it's out there. yesterday axios had a report of the trip administration is about the thinking of nationalizing the 5g networks that are now starting to get built out by the carriers. because reasons was not quite clear, said was matter of

national security because unclear how far along this got whether it was the last intern to get access to the whiteboard wrote this out. [laughing] >> all of those things are plausible. >> did you see those coming? >> so 5g, yes, and that's something we've been working with lots of different groups on for a while. here's what i find problematic. it's yet another leaked thing. the last thing that we need at this point is yet another leaked thing with very little, you know, actual data but beyond whatever got released. what the least is wild speculation. and the people not mapping scenarios in the data-driven way but instead reacting, we can all react as we all have opinions, reacting to what was in that memo. here's the reality. regardless of what the administration's policy is, as we move from, move into a world of connected things, the

challenge is that a lot of those connected things need more bandwidth. they need to connect to each other and need to do that in a secured way. that doesn't just include attempts on this new suite of refrigerators and connected kitchens. at some point it also means all of the vehicles that we're driving but also includes things like they're their interestingu biotechnologies on the horizon and lots of other things. on the one hand, you know, wanting to ensure the security of that system in some way makes a lot of sense. on the other hand, where has the government been in the past 60 years? the whole infrastructure got built by commercial entities. and to be fair, the commercial entities should have years ago, anybody could've seen years ago, we all did, that broadband was coming and digital video was coming, and the business model wasn't going to work.

they built the network. don't they still have some say in monetizing that investment? you could also argue that the transition to 5g has been slower in the united states and has been elsewhere. but all of these conversations now are not really doing us a lot of good. because at this point now everybody's got sort of heated emotions. better to have had these conversations ten years ago before we had to make decisions under duress. so who knows what the document is and -- >> it will get leaked in a week. >> that's right. >> artificial intelligence, it's this special sauce you can put in any product to make it sound more attractive. >> sure, toothbrushes. i saw an artificial intelligent toothbrush. >> i might have as well. >> yes, two years ago. >> why not? so what are the policy implications we're not thinking about in terms of, to use greek

you look at social networks you would've thought we should definitely make sure people can take other peoples accounts. it wasn't so much discussion, people create fake accounts just to confuse the real people in the methought we should solve harassment but how about changing peoples minds. >> sure. there's a lot to unpack. here's what i would say about ai. ai is not a singular thing. it is a different way of computing, and one of the challenges that we have in general is that the bulk of the research in a a eyes been handd by nine companies. not my research institutions. they do have partnerships with academic researchers but all of the advancement is essential in the united states being driven by corporate interests. and i'm a capitalist. i believe people should be able to make money. however, at some point to the

commercial interests necessarily but up against our national interests, and, quite frankly, the edges of the future of humanity? in the united states those companies are microsoft, facebook, ibm, google/alphabet, and then skipping one. >> apple? >> -ish. and the other, the of the big companies, ibm up i didn't say it, so other three, and arguably the most well-capitalized and certainly those special i.t. globally are in china. what's interesting here is that the chinese government has obviously made big proclamations about the next 20 years and how it plans to be a global leader in ai. but what's important to note, because the native industrial policy before and china doesn't always follow through on, in a way that measures up to the proclamations. what's different this time is that china is not going it

alone. there are researchers based in the united states. they are pouring money into u.s. firms, but unlike a traditional hedge, they're not expecting a return, they're bleeding i.t. there's a lot of work that is being done that is going directly back to the chinese government. there is no way for me to build a scenario out for the next 20 years at the moment that, you know, has an optimistic framing. china, you probably heard the date is the next oil. the reason for that is because it is our data that is mine and we find that makes the system work. and if that's the case, and i should mention, sorry, amazon, that should've been the first thing out of my mouth. if that's the case and the united states jeff bezos is our new john rockefeller, right? but not nearly as powerful as

what we're seeing come out of china. the united states lacks, so ai is this, the next era of computing from which there are many spokes which includes things like biotechnologies. those two things go together. automation in our transportation technologies, all of these different areas. and we don't have a national biology policy. if you think of biology is one of the most important platforms, the technology platforms of the 21st century, we don't have national biology platform. i can't talk about it, that i know of, you know, noticing a lot of the same enthusiasm. instead what i'm seeing is a lot of avoiding the subject, we are waiting, throwing money into yesterdays technologies which is

infuriating because it doesn't have to be that way. and i have a seven-year-old why don't want to wake up 30 years now and realize that she is no longer living in a global superpower. >> same. >> right? we can do something about it now but you can't keep building, you know, under narrative strategies for botnets that anybody else, like that such an old, it's great that we're sort of try to catch up at this point but i don't want, america can't be there catch up country going forward. i i would hope that you would fl the same. >> so the other trend around ai i've seen is to the approach is welcome what companies, we'll see what happens, and the european union, the general data protection as a general right to explanation if an algorithm makes a disease that affects you. you can say where did this come from? >> they have thought that through either to be fair.

>> not the first time you've overstepped a little bit. >> it wouldn't. but the problem is one of the things we're all going to figure out how to do going forward is to write policy in a way that makes sense given the technology that that policy and that regulation is intended to govern. because at the moment technology is advancing far faster than anybody's ability to write policy for it to legislate it. so given that that's the scenario, one would have to wonder how is that even going to get enforced. you are worried about fake news now. we are entering an era of splinter internet. depending on where you are in the world, that are completely, the internet absolutely has geopolitical borders and tax borders, and as of may some incredibly stringent regulatory borders, you know, in what passes for content that's illegal in germany may not also

be legal in italy, and may be different in canada versus mexico. how are you possibly going to enforce that? so again i think we have to think very critically and carefully about how we are creating policy going forward, given that the people creating the technologies that you're trying to write policy for, you know, you don't want to stifle innovation and development. but on the other hand, you can't regulate it three years after the fact. you have to anticipate, which is what again its dangers that we don't have an ota or an equivalent. people can argue there are different pockets around d.c. that the search some of that same function but we do not have hundreds upon hundreds of trained scientists and technologists and mathematicians, actual futurists

who are nonpartisan whose job it is to educate the people who are writing policy and voting. we don't have that anymore. >> refresh the memories of the younger folks here, the office of technology -- >> ninety-six by gingrich turkey defunded it. >> how much money did we save? >> so much. probably a seat on an aircraft carrier. >> air force one, those are not cheap. >> and the sick thing is the ota in the united states became the template for lots of other countries around the world, and it still exist elsewhere. so we don't have the equipment of that now which is why we keep having these partisan conversations about technology. we should probably have some kind of cdc for digital public health. so we do have something like that, it's called the u.s. cert. and i'm on the site but my dad isn't. my dad is a very, very smart

person. he's got a house full of technology and he applies no firmware update. great, now my dad is going to get hacked, someone watching c-span. please don't hack dad. >> not the most readable thing. >> it's not what if we start, if we reframe the conversation of the technology that we use we assume, we agree digital literacy is important, then isn't it time that with something like a cdc whose job it is in getting a very effective way and measured way, educate the everyday person about the benefits and dangers, you know, of using digital tools and infrastructure and online media. but in a way that's relatable. >> so in the last election the discussion at cybersecurity was not great. what are the signs you're going to be looking for that we should be looking for to see that we're getting a lease some what more intelligent and we can have a

debate on cybersecurity that features a phrase the 400-pound hacker on the bed. >> so here's, again herself far out of touch those are the use of that hackers are still people. they are not, okay? on the more advanced side of the space people have now written programs to do this automatically. so the 400-pound like slob hacker you're picturing as the cause of election problems, like that's not, like that's not what we talking about. >> a 400-pound laptop. >> and smaller than that. and when you think attacking like you probably still thinking about computers, right? within our lifetimes and probably sometime in the next 15 years we are to have new types of technology that we ingest, that we wear for a variety of

different informational and medical purposes, right? i don't think that anybody has a clue as to what's coming. i don't think that people in washington, d.c. have thought this through. there are very smart people here whose voices would be great to hear in a way that is easy for everybody to understand what i just don't think, i don't think we are prepared. my job is not to constantly look for doom and gloom, you know? however, given what i know to be true today at the data i've got available, i'm having a hard time, i'm having a hard time. >> and i guess then, what? we're just going for the down this path of stumbling and looking backwards? >> so there is hope for redemption. i don't think that we are all living in westworld and that we are preprogrammed bots caring at

somebody else's source code. we do have the ability to change. we have the ability to write the futures that we want but we have to decide that we want something different and then we have to push up our sleeves and do the difficult job of making sure that all of the pieces are in place so that we can create the future that we want. if you don't want to live in a world of splintered internets, right, where depending on where you are in the army not have access to information which is going to make the containment of fake news that much more difficult, then we can do something about it now. twitter, so i watched, twitter, you know, make big promises. facebook has made big promises they're going to something to combat it. facebook sent out -- did you get the two question survey? you are not cool enough. i'm not cool enough either. >> did anybody get the survey

about what new site features of facebook? >> this is how facebook is going to combat the problem. there's a two question survey that was basically like do you trust any of the sources, and then company, that was basically it. twitter has promised to combat news problems, fake news problems here on saturday i was in my office working, it was international holocaust remembrance day. on the left rail are all the trending topics can one of them was islam. i clicked on it to see what was going on and the very top news story was from russia today. okay? you know, and it was a totally made-up story, and i'm not even going to repeat it. it doesn't bear my repeating. it was a made-up story. and i have a verified account. so my question is, this is not magical algorithmic mathematica

mathematical, you know, pixie dust that nobody can grab out of the ear. it's very, very hard to fix. it's not that hard to fix. we just chose not to. there's a business case for not fixing the problem. we keep clicking because we want to see the crazy thing this could happen next so we are part of the problem, too. we all have to decide what a different future. then we have to do something about it, and doing something about it isn't just having occasional meetings where policy moves at the speed of washington, d.c. that's not a good thing. >> on the other hand, i seen so much, not that it's easy to gain facebook, also -- that is a hard disk problems. >> the biggest virus. right, but that is perpetuated. i mean, the problem is that our current internet plays very well to our systems. we are constantly chasing.

on the one in its biology, it's not our fault, right? on the other hand, you know, there are other times when we have medical ailments and it was us and we a way to get around it. i feel like we're the capacity to get around this as well. the problem is that we are all enjoying this too much, you know? we like the smack talk, all of these, everybody has got an opinion on net neutrality. burger king has an opinion on net neutrality. why? right? why does burger king -- >> i didn't even capture the speed is it didn't but that's kind of appointment it doesn't matter if it's fake news or actual news or actual information to everybody wants to be a part of the fray, and in the digital realm our attention is currency. it's harder and harder to grab onto that currency and earn the currency. we have to make, we have to

decide what a different future for ourselves. that are mandate. >> your book is all about how to be a better futurist for start becoming. let's close up out by throwingt some questions people should be asking when they see some trees report of here's a security breach, here's the study this has such and such as possible of facebook. here's this other thing in your anxiety closet that you can now worried about. >> site open first all my research and mythology about a year ago. of that but it's also publicly available. my feeling is that the kind of work that i do is something anybody can do but again you have to just make a decision that you want to choose a different path a going forward so on the digital literary front there are lots of amazing organizations that are working on this. i see alex sitting in front of me, doing some of this. anyhow, there's a lot of different ways in tools, you

know, to help. in terms of thinking about the future it has to be delivery process and is not like reading mashable and tech crunch and checking the winds. there's more to it than that pickets of the everybody office should be fully engaged in. and i think the last piece of advice is, like for us all to slow down a little bit, you know? i know that we're living in a fast-paced society but the technology we are confronting is amazing. several years from now we are going to be living in a magical world. but at some point somebody's going to want to legislate against the get somebody is going to break the law in a way we haven't thought of before. i have yet your inquiry have conversation around artificial narrow intelligence, was not some of our constitutional guarantees apply to code, once

that could essentially enslaved to us. we have a lot of really difficult questions on the horizon and it's best not to answer those questions under duress. so everybody can take a moment and learn a bit more and engage a little bit more unhealthy we will all be better off in the long run. >> that's perfect time since now there is a coffee break. >> go catholic or get a drink some added more market by deprd you. [laughing] >> great. thank you. >> thanks. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> as you heard there's a short break taking place now. this competent national security wrapping up the morning session. speeches by senator amy klobuchar who you heard and dhs deputy secretary elaine duke among the portion we will have available for you shortly on a website c-span.org. conference begin breaking into small sessions. they will be back at noon eastern. we will return at the time with conversation with congressman bob goodlatte, and the ceo of an

application startup that rescue workers in texas used to find and save flood victims surrounded by hurricane harvey. coming up at 1:00 greg walden and former fcc commissioner robert mcdowell. later this afternoon you will hear from fcc commissioner jessica rosenworcel. deputy internal rod rosenstein people have those for you and record doesn't have it for you later on the c-span networks. this afternoon a preview of the president's state of the address. tony that discussion hosted by the "washington post" white house counselor kellyanne conway, house minority leader nancy pelosi, live coverage starts at 230 eastern on c-span3. preview also airing tonight at night eastern on c-span. >> the president of united states. [applause] >> tuesday night president

donald trump gives his first date of the union address to congress and the nation. join us on c-span for a preview of the evening starting at 8 p.m. eastern. in the state of the speech live at 9 p.m. following the speech the democratic response from congressman joe kennedy. we will also hear your reaction and comments from members of congress. president trump's state of being address tuesday night life on c-span. listen live on the free c-span radio app and available live or on-demand on your desktop, thought or tablet at c-span.org. >> welcome to las vegas. this is the committed on c-span. we are on location the next couple of weeks. at the consumer electronics show in of the largest tradeshows in america and will show you some of the interviews we did with tech leaders and will show you some of the latest technology. this is the community on