have from the library of congress to recommend books to me that we can go read and return and asked for other resources if we find something that interest us. >> book tv wants to know what you are reading. send us your list on twitter, instagram, or facebook. book tv on c-span2, television for serious readers. . .

upcoming san francisco program on august 21 university of california president janet napolitano former secretary of security old of audit conversah louis jones on producing the risk from earth quakes, fires and other environmental threats that should be an interesting program. august 30, democratic congressman steve israel will be here to talk about guns, politics and the future of the democratic party. there will also be moderated by tonight's distinguished congressional representative, former under secretary of state for arms control international's activity and a member of the commonwealth board of governors finally on september 5, steven pinker will be with us to talk about science, reason and humanism. he is always interesting.

if you are not remember this is a great time to join. we feel very lucky to be here. it's a great time to see many events in the new building and lots of interesting ones coming up. you will be the first to know when we have guests like white house reporter april ryan coming in the fall and noted celebrity chef josé andre. there's a gentle man in the back seat to raise your hand. there he is. he will talk about money and save you money on great memberships if you want to talk with him he will tell you details on joining the commonwealth club. finally let me tell you the question card is on your seat for the distinguished speaker tonight that will be collected during the program and brought to the moderator and we want to remind everyone copies of the secretary's booksecretary's boon the lobby and he will be pleased to sign them after the program. we also want to mention the commonwealth club is a

nonpartisan organization and we ask the speakers be allowed to make remarks without interruption and now without further ado please give a warm welcome to the secretary michael chertoff, and the honorable ellen tauscher. plus the >> thank you. [applause] good evening and welcome to the commonwealth club. i'm the former under secretary of state for arms control and international security, member of congress and members of the commonwealth club board of governors and i am your moderator for tonight's program. it is now my pleasure to introduce tonight's guest, the honorable michael chertoff, former secretary of homeland security under george w. bush and author of the terrific new book, "exploding data reclaiming our cybersecurity in the digital

age." as the secretary o secretary ofe department of homeland security from 2005 to 2009, michael chertoff led the country and blocking would-be terrorists. before heading up the department of homeland security, secretary chertoff served as the federal judge in the court of appeals for the third circuit. currently is the cofounder and executive chairman of the group, he provides high-level strategic counsel to corporate and government leaders on a broad range of security issues. today we will discuss the belief that the growth of the internet has made our greatest threats not physical but digital. please welcome secretary chertoff. the [applause] when i saw the gavel i thought i haven't had a gavel since i was a judge.

when you are on the court of appeals you don't actually use it. [laughter] >> i used to preside over the house when nancy pelosi was the speaker and it was five times the size of this and the trick is you don't bang the gavel, you go like this. so it's only effective if you have the looked at my mother taught me. [laughter] let's get down to the conversation. this is a great book, "exploding data." i was interested not only because of the world we all live in. is your data safe, is facebook really building communities were just filling the data. as you know they have the largest decline in the in stock

today. i approach the book and wondered this is one of these technical kind of subjects. you have done a great job of weaving the stories in so people can understand what exactly is happening and why this is such an important subject so i have dogeared a bunch of pages and i just want to go through you put the world into three types of data. data 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. why don't you talk a little bit about how you organize this so people can approach it and why i hope everybody is going to take this home and spend some time with it. >> with the cia was trying in part to describe the fact that technology has stripped the architecture of the law and policy and there comes a point

you can't anymore. we have to go back to the drawing board. and as i thought about it, i thought wayne has this happened before and i went back to the founding of the country and back even before that to england back in the last millennium when we begin to have a right to privacy and it was all about property, every person's home in newcastle and all the discussion about the right to privacy those who can come to your house and take your stuff and look at it. that's what i call 1.0. we generate the data by talking, wrote things down on paper. that was basically it. then in the 19th century you wind up with photography and telephony. for the first time we were generating data not face-to-face or handwriting typing. needless to say as soon as those

technologies became widespread, issues came up about whether the government could get them and make use of them so for example there's a famous case which i talk about where a young woman her boyfriend took her picture and without consent gave it to a flour milling company that photograph on the side of all of the bags of flowers she got upset about it and she sued them. it caused distress by using her image to promote something she didn't want to promote and the reaction was to go back to 1.0 which was to say no one invaded your house cummings agreed to your photograph being taken and you are not being detained, so it's not viable so you do not have a claim. but eventually what they said if there iisthere is something abog your image for commercial

purposes that is something you ought to have a right to control so they created the rights against misappropriation. a similar example is wiretapping. initially unless you actually penetrated the home with the premise that you were wiretapping so there was a technical trespass if you were just on the wires by the phone company, the court took the attitude you don't have any privacy rights. as the conversation intercepted outside of your property but eventually in the case called katz, the court said basically we are missing something here. there's so much being done on the telephone we need to protect this. so i leave these out in that the law does change but often it requires a tipping point where finally the courts or congress or both say we've got to go back to the drawing board and understand what it is we are trying to protect. >> that is a very interesting analogy on how to think about

this. talk about angry birds. angry birds is now reaching through into data 3.0. >> as we engage with any kind of act it is now often in a very opaque fashion and collected data about where we are going to visit these sites and are reusing the same device to play a game or use an app and we are not always aware of what they are doing or if they do make us aware by writing a 60 page disclosure statement that makes your house buying contract group you are not going to read it and then an even more challenging issue with respect to some applications you don't really have a choice because effectively they are a monopoly and if you want to participate in the interchange, you either surrender the data or you don't

play and i think that is also an issue i talk about in the book that we have to start to come to grips with. >> the other thing that you highlight that causes people to stop and think, most of us know about moore's law which was developed by founder of intel that sent every two years the process are sizable bubble and then immediately everybody will move into that space and then two years later. you said the interesting part about this is people don't understand that there is a simultaneous growth of storage capacity. so the idea that everything you do lives on forever i think people don't understand that. >> there were two developments come after three, it transformed the way people think about even

how they are publicly generated data is used. we can now store everything forever. in the old days let's say you did something in public does so someone could take a photograph or whatever but in the end it would get lost or wouldn't be distributed, there wasn't the ability to make a lot of use out of it. that's changed, but there's a second development. storage would be worthless if you cannot analyze what you stored. it's like the scene from the movie invaders were raiders of the last arc where in the end they take it and put it in some government warehouse and you know it will never be seen again. analytics allows you to make use of the data so that it doesn't get lost actually gets operationalized. the third is the average cloud or related thing about selling data you might think that if a

single individual records you, takes a photograph and you go to the store and use your loyalty card and buy your groceries, yes theryes. steve had been collected but it's also permit. when you're not necessarily focused on is if it is all uploaded to the cloud, the cloud provider may have the ability to scan all of the data that comes in from all the different sources and identifies things about you or it can be sold to a data broker to harvest different sources of data about you so all of a sudden, this indefinitely stored and analyzed data from all these different collection devices gets merged together and now they become available for analytical purposes to whoever buys them or operates them on the cloud platform. that's what it takes even what goes on in public different now than it would have been let's say 30 years ago when those in

public were exposed but they had a short shelf life and the ability to use was limited by time and space. >> that brings us to something. it's not only the data analytics of being able to aggregate a bunch of data and analyze it and keep it forever, it's the weaponize thing of data and that is the capacious side of the developments that have happened that have goods to them. we can process things now in hospitals much more quickly. we have the ability to use fast computers and for something that even just a few years ago it couldn't be helped because by the time the information went through the computer, they were either too far gone or couldn't

be helped. so there's a lot of good things about the data at the same time, there is the whole now weaponization that bothers a lot of people. you talk about fake news. talk about that. >> the last couple of years we've had a discussion about what used to be called the operations effective measures by the russians and other countries as well that use variations of this and this is the use of media to propagate stories that are exaggerated or false or one-sided in order to drive behavior, social discord and even hatred. now i have to say in the preface, this idea is not new. if you go back 100 years to the common term, they had a propaganda machine. the tools were very primitive and not particularly skilled at

the idea of using propaganda work to persuade people and manipulate them is not a new idea. here is what has changed. the media is much more of the te quickest and the idea to target susceptible groups in a very efficient way allows people to carry out active measures to be more productive in terms of what they want to do. it's often difficult to know who is condé nast and one of the things that has arisen is people masquerading as your friend were pretending to be americans when they are really russians or bot nets with the internet association with russia pretending that they are actually acting like individua individuals. so there is a pretense of froth about who is communicating. now we have to be careful with this because i believe in the first amendment, and i think

that's the fact that something is untrue doesn't mean you can ban it but at a minimum as i say in the book, i think you can certainly require people to identify themselves honestly, indicate if it is a foreign government or power and perhaps they can be required to identify themselves and maybe even be restricted because they can't affect their own and you may be able to do other things that signal that there's something funny about the source. but i also have to say in the end it is about us to pay attention. there are many people whose attitudes i just want to hear what makes me feel good about what i believe and they don't care. so, there's an educational process within that is part of the response to this. >> that's great. we have a question from someone in the audience. what do you believe the data will be for 4.0.

and in terms of service what you think about skipping the term or should there be something more about opt in versus opt out? >> 4.0 it's hard to know exactly what it may be. i suspect a couple of the following things. artificial intelligence, the use of machine learning and speed to accelerate what's being done and to make it even more precise and perhaps to be predictive so that it's no longer a matter of people learning what you've done with them acting on what you're going to do. another thing i recently heard this called deep fake. it's the ability to take video and audio, merry togethe mary td fabricates what appear to be accurate and convincing audio and video clips that are totally fabricated so that you can come almost unable to trust what you see with your own eyes because people are manipulating it. as to the second part of the question, i think that this is

part of what i am suggesting in the book that the ability to protect your privacy and your freedom by holding the data to your self is not really going to be there anymore just as with the ad on the telephone you can could have your conversations behind closed doors. so i think it becomes controlling the data even after it's been collected by someone. what is the right to say yes or no to the use of the data for other purposes, and i think that is what the law passed basically says you have the right to require that before someone uses your data you are asked to get content or not and i think that is where we are going to have to go. one of the challenges is that it has to be in plain language what they are going to do and not 60 pages of stuff. and you have to have a real choice so if it is effectively a

monopoly, they should at least give the option of participating so you are not given the choice of being shut out of something entirely or having to give the data over for whatever purpose someone wants to use it. >> i think everyone wants to support local stores and retail, but most of us use amazon unlocked. i have family all over the country is easy to send gifts they know more about me than i want them to know. that is a benign part of this but there's a lot of other things people worry about. you talk about in the book the new law that you think should be promulgated that can help block some of these scenarios as part of it is educating people so they become empowered and know what to ask for and how to protect themselves.

>> it's about being mindful of what you do online. i am not throwing you off the grid and i do not use social media but i always make a decision by am i doing this and what information am i generati generating. to better sending the notices i give them my location because it doesn't work but for most of these things now i will do without the notice of what you can offer me so it is mindful like that. i'm mindful of what i search online and if i'm going to use my device. i do like crossword puzzles so i do a lot of online searching for

crossword puzzles and if you can figure out what this means, good luck. >> speaking of the grid why does the power system have to be connected to the internet and maybe you can talk a little bit about that. >> we've known for some time they operate real stuff in the world and are vulnerable. there were cases in ukraine in the last few years during christmas lights went out for several people because the russians hacked into the control systems and either resulted in false readings that caused the engineers to shut them down or they interfered in the operation of a system and that issue of the security is the core of the biggest concern people have about cyber warfare and a tax. the short answer is a lot of this stuff shouldn't be connected to the internet but

for example many of you will have in your house a thermostat you can remotely adjust when you are outside of the house. you understand there are engineers for dealing with a wide system where there's a lot of different elements in the pipeline. they want to visit each one to take a reading and see whether everything is okay. the other problem is often people think they are disconnected but there is a part of the system that is connected to everything else. years ago the chamber of commerce in washington got hacked because although they had a good securithave a good secur, they had a remote connection to a thermostat in another building and that became the entry point to kind of get into their data system. when we think about the internet of things, that will be a big issue because many of these smart things really don't have

any security. they use a default password like 123 or they have no capacity to update or patch so that kind of things we saw recently that could target them becomes a problem for everything that is connected. >> this is another take how can the government to control the distribution of fake news or manipulation by the information this tradition system without infringing on first amendment rights? >> you can't control fake news content without censoring and there are many people who would love to do that. the number one guy to sign up would be to attend because they believe cyber warfare includes information they don't want to have their citizens read so i and a fundamentalist on this

issue. there are somethings yo some tho without infringing the amendment. i don't think there's a first amendment right if i am a russian to pretend i am an american. if you are a foreign government and you want to take out or advocate we already have laws that have been upheld that prohibit foreigners from those contributions so you can do a lot identify the source and also preventing the use of large-scale botnets to affect the ranking of things on a platform to promote your story by misleading or generating. when you get into content with specific exceptions, generally in this country we say the right answer to the false content

unless it is defamatory or fraudulent is to have more speech. in europe, to be honest, they tend to go the other direction. they say hate speech, what they call fake news. i don't know where you draw the line but we are skeptical about putting the government have the power. and it also creates a problem for platforms that are global because if you get punished for putting in a story that the germans don't like online, it could wind up in americans not being able to and infringe our rights come as it is a challenging area which is one of the reasons i highlighted it. >> is another great question we speak out about educating the public about cybersecurity.

do they incorporate them to do what's right? >> i think on the security side there is education because. people don't understand how you make a reasonable effort to assess if something is real or not. for example it's for personal identifiable information. on the fake news piece a lot of that is going to be an educational process. i think honestly this is to start in grade school. when i was a kid, television was

still relatively new and there was a little bit of a worry. like now they have these commercials is everyone going to believe what is on the commercials is true, and eventually your parents would tell you when you were little don't believe that. a lot of this stuff is nonsense. you are not going to grow in two seconds if you need wonder bread and if you would find in [inaudible] >> you get a sandwich. so we have to start fo with educational process. >> so, this is another tough question. how did we not see this coming? what are the barriers to not seeing it coming and since we didn't, but might be seen as retrospect to get ready for the next thing? stanek that could be a whole separate book but you've got

early warning about this. for a long time i think there are a couple of things that people avert their eyes from the challenges. one was i think there were just fun new technologies for people to use and there was a little bit of a sense that silicon valley and the community were kind of glamour children. it was innovation and disruption. when i grew up, disruption and you've got sent to the principle that i know here it is a process. but it was a little bit of light we do good so we are good. we just want to make the world better. between that and the excitement of playing with new things i think that we were slow to realize. the hardest thing is to know the next thing that is going to happen. the good news is you come back to what we talked about on

issues like artificial intelligence and face recognition, other things that might be the harbingers of new technological advances. >> and this happened when you've got to make sure if you're open to new technologies you are not so distracted by the bright shiny object.

>> that great. traditionally governments have left basic behavioral values and instruction to religion. in today's world should promoting universal civil tees and values and education be seen as a duty of government and civil society? >> so we did have a civic focus on american values not particularly religion but the values of the first amendment with tolerance we didn't always honor them with execution but so people still invoke the constitution but that is the iconic symbol of america so unlike some places

in europe if you're not french if not for generations we don't measure being an american based on your land -- longevity of ancestors but your willingness to embrace i remember when i used to swear people in. you are as much of an american as im or the great-great-grandparents coming off of the mayflower. >> the idea of community has been embedded in the constitution and bill of rights if you think about it is a printer on how to do it. you think of terms like weapon

iced and tribalism my dad passed away a few years ago but he would watch on -- would not watch anything other than msnbc he was a democrat he wanted to. forced i had my mom watch fox news once a week so i would know what was going on. [laughter] she was a reliable source. but there is a way to knit together those communities and the way we live now and move around. how do we get ourselves back to the sense of signing up those ideals and reinforcing them with children and different generations but also making sure we don't lose touch with the best of us including diversity and

immigrants? >> my wife does some work in this area in her world. some of this is from the peace corps but pushing decision-making in government down to the lowest level you can make a decision but if you get to towns and states, generally you got mine -- you get a lot less because on the local school board will have to look your parents in the i go to the grocery store if you're not delivering you will hear about it see you are reinvigorating localism and federalism but to create stronger bonds it is important as well. and with those community

organizations religious or not i think contributes to tribalism. people thought this would form a committee because your kids are communicating with other parts of the world i think maybe wyatt is misunderstood is for a lot of people communicating with anybody gravitating what they believe as that is mutually reinforcing that embeds people more firmly into our own prejudices. maybe something that was lost through national service you would spend a couple of years for those working with you in a common effort.

one that i have talked to people that there is a generation of young folks between 30s and 40s who served in the military and now talking about getting involved in the political process. amen to that those people from a wide variety of different backgrounds in iraq and afghanistan the locals they would work with and patriotic so i'm hopeful there is a generation rising with the insular attitude. >> i always believe that community service it was a lifetime opportunity not just military service that is laudable but it could be

reading to children are many different things. it could be local for the peace corps but there should be a sense of obligation and a sense that sometime in your life if you are young and have the time that you can do things that will really get back to your community everybody should want that but we have become more vulcanized than we should. but talk about propaganda in the election. what do you think we have to look out for. >> that the russians will have to attempt.

this isn't a single election to figure out using analytics maybe those 30 or 40 key races but to interfere with those mechanics that is tough to change the votes but you could make it difficult to determine who is registered or not. maybe 24 years back they tried to hack with a false report those efforts are to undermine the turnout to interfere with the ability with the mechanics

of the voting system but with the fake news and with the division. and to foment civil disorder by encouraging right-wing and left-wing groups to go and then they have the ability with the police response by hacking in their abilities. i do think we need to be mindful of this to put into context. back when the soviet union existed they embedded people in various left-wing political groups to generate violence. it was not scalable.

and the scale is much greater. it is a patchwork quilt even inside the counties and different ways of voting. in the west increasingly in the bay area. and the idea to get challenged when you vote physically and then to worry about going to the polls with a provisional ballot i've never seen you before here is a provisional ballot and they are pushed to the side. shouldn't we be doing

something now? the month after the election to get a sense that are out of government or smart people. >> so i do think now department of homeland security is focused on this issue so those that were reluctant to get the federal government involved so all the states to some degree are engaging in fiber security. so a transatlantic commission to braying best practices as well as awareness to all of the allies in north america

and not where we need to be moving in the right direction. >> claire mccaskill campaign today immediately it was assumed the russians had hacked her campaign but even if you look back now in the summer of 16 at enough i can do that without crying, but and with the dnc e-mails and hillary and her e-mails, and just what was on those e-mails. and her schedule and the polling data. are you coming to lunch? where will you be on tuesday?

it is important information that was sent around and use to the trump campaign. and what do we do and people cannot get themselves organized so what do you think people should be doing? >> it isn't limited to and when carter was running and iranians held the hostages at all they wanted reagan if they did they made a big mistake but they would try to affect to the election. this goes not just online but

obviously want to do the best we can through that registration process and things like that. and what you can identify to promote those stories and prevent that. but imagine in a particular area of the russian full meant into interfere with the ability to respond that could have an effect on the election to affect people's morality. so turnout becomes a big issue. i know you can change a lot of votes but that has an effect. so i would watch and then to

even create a disturbance of some kind doesn't have to be foreigners americans can do this as well. everyone needs to learn the game. >> how do we use data to prevent gerrymandering? >> and to draw a new congressional alliance. and then to be organized the congress to accommodate with 435 members of the house so they analyze that census data and subtract from northern industrial states and add them to mostly southern and western states and when they

redistrict them they redraw the lines for the population. and now to do gerrymandering that is another issue. >> unfortunately that analytics it is easy to gerrymander. so with those weird districts now you can get down block by block and if you take most of your people in one district and in the other they are more favorable to your party. there is a bigger problem but there has to be a formula for drawing districts based on coherent geography other than based on population.

as opposed to have something with those interesting parties it is called communities of interest. and then they moved to be closer to family. then they find people in a certain place to be like them. if you look at maps of red and blue it is not pixelated. because people tend to go to places where people are like them. it is important with our commission to draw districts you have to know almost

nothing and that was a good thing because you don't try to be into one party or the other but it has improved the situation with the rest of the country we only have 53 seats. you have to have 218 to pass. we need the need the rest of the country to cooperate a little bit. >> how do you feel about big data and healthcare? and optimizing efficiency or should we be concerned on a breach? >> there are some pluses and minuses things that can be done with healthcare to monitor to help treat people over distance rapidly as soon as i saw today the ability

when they are picked up in the ambulance due to preliminary operating because somebody controls a robot arm using their hand to correspond. and there are rules so therefore it doesn't have restrictions that require keep the data secure so that's a good thing there are two risks you have to watch one is enough to upgrade security and help that you are not slipping and that's why you have to keep it separated and have a firewall so what happens when your insurer decides they don't just want your health data but other things? there was a story in the paper the other day about some insurers

who are now looking at what type of clothing you buy if you buy a larger size of clothing then they thank you are overweight and should raise your rates so that is scary then imagine the way they look at is if you change your name if you are getting married or divorced that could be stress and affect your rates. so that mean nightmare that i present in the book that everything you do can result in a reward or punishment and the chinese are working on this just like credit karma will tell your credit score to get a loan this is everything you do or who your friends are or online or your behavior to determine if you are a good or bad citizen with better education or a better place to live if you are a bad citizen

less than that. that is when you start to lose your freedom. >> this person says since we can't trust trump what are we doing to health and what is the top priority? thank you for protecting us. >> i do think the departments are trying to work in cybersecurity you saw the fbi did do the investigation leading to the indictments of those russians but the department of homeland security hits the private sector even closer to manage cybersecurity to the threats and that is a good thing too.

and some of those agencies are looking at to do a better job of securing the supply chain. some of the chips are made in other parts of the world have back doors interrupting critical infrastructure. these are most of the assets in private hands so the private sector has to invest their suppliers are? and engaging in their network. and train their people not to do the kinds of things that result in downloading malicious tools onto the network globalization and trade are talked about and fungible he and a lot of people were hurt in the

workplace with globalization by jobs moving offshore. but the trade is interesting with 4% of the world's population we we need access to the other 96 to sell our goods we actually did not have a lot of tariff until recently, that is a tax by the way, what do we do about the dating issues? what about companies where we have real concerns about who they are and the trapdoor issue issues. >> the u.s. has done very well but to the point and that to handicap american companies or

there are requirements from the citizens of the country and not his fragmenting american companies. so out of the global reach of data so you have to have global set of rules because if it is fragmented there are intranets. and then to recognize what we are talking about now is those of a similar value how do we synchronize away to have a common picture of what the rules are to govern data and the rules of the road of how we manage the data.

i don't believe in tariffs it doesn't always spread winners and losers. but there is the area where the administration the chinese in particular has been very adamant to get the intellectual property. they are doing it online with the spies and espionage there was a report a couple days ago from the counterintelligence folks in the chinese companies buying the technology and getting into that supply chain.

and we need to make it clear that it is the coming handicap and their willingness to trust the systems. >> do you have an opinion of what we have been talking about if it should be regulated? with law enforcement with a web provider like google talk about gdpr that you data privacy. >> that is their effort to use the data that would -- that has been collected. but that basic concept force

them to use that purpose for the obvious reason you turned it over and i have even gotten some notices with that wonderful marketing material please click here. i never click on it because i don't but you give people more control that might mean and and that gives us the choice and not a fan of contact regulation or with a separate category. certainly wanted want the government to regulate to

strike at the heart of the conversation. but that can become inhibiting. and how that power to control discourse in private sector hand totally in my view to deal with those artificial efforts to drive certain stories to impersonate people or do things to make it easier that you manipulate the algorithms i am on board to put that off-limits. with those narrow issues so i honor the first amendment. and not really protected by the first amendment.

so for example i would worry about a message that said and recruit for terrorism. when you get into instructing people to get into the gray area depending on how definitive it is. and with content regulation. and there are some politics and then that we come together to do gdpr but when mark sucker berg testified a few weeks ago in the first five

minutes he said we will adopt gdpr which is a european law. we don't have a choice that we don't have an american law. so what is the push poll? the supreme court will tackle this issue so talking about some court cases in the book one of them they were placed on a car to do surveillance 247. and there wasn't a warrant. with protection under the amendment and in this case the volume is so qualitatively

different theater follow people around to follow somebody in a couple of justices went further and then to put something on the car so some of these justices said to say we should say as a general principle whether video cameras there is a limit to how much you can there is an effort for weapons or to seize any evidence. and basically they got into the phone because there is so much data on the phone that it's not like what you would search if you found a piece of paper in someone's pocket it

is your whole life that requires a warrant. but one month ago in carpenter there was the supreme court of streaming data for him yourself him and then to turn it over in response to a subpoena. the court said no there is so much vocational data to go beyond what we would normally think is a reasonable expectation that there was an interesting point from justice gorsuch even when somebody has your died at my or data that doesn't mean you lose your right. in this case to apply that but it suggests that the justices

are thinking about issues and that is a good thing. is that the future currency? and how does that regulate the transaction? does that help them understand it is an asset? has a value and needs to be protected. to assess the trend and that

is determined to value that contagion. i'm not recommending that the people sell that but to treat that as an asset with a house or as your bank account that is part of the process to educate people about. >> how do you put together an education campaign? how do we get people to understand how to calibrate tha that? we you start with little kids but this is part of what we are writing about and speaking about and to understand the data is valuable and collected and use and to take responsibility for their own decisions and talk

to the legislators. and then one of the beauties of the system is they can do things at the state level went to get rolling then we break the mold and to get that native long -- notifications before that data is used also california could be an early adopter. >> we have three minutes left but i will ask a long question going into our closing. at the end of the book and for those that can block and then

what should they be advocating for? >> we talked about the need to have control over your data. you have to go through the file. >> the first one is to protect against physical security by bad actors. >> and that is embedding standards with cybersecurity to have people secure their data and also those who don't that can be held liable. >> we have become enormously defensive with our economy with bigger walls and tougher ways with that to or three kind of verification. when does it change?

>> we do do offense of things that one of the recommendations is the government has a role to play with offenses cyberactivity but that is a great way to start a war so other than that provision by the government i would be very much against the idea to take matters into her own hands. >> that is what we talked about earlier to harmonize the rules with allies overseas because otherwise you end up with a lot of different internet i realize china and russia will have a different set of rules and may go in a different direction that they will pay a price for that we want to make sure we don't pay that price. >> to use private parties to make the individual data.

>> and then to collaborate with government and the shared folder ability. >> this is the area with that equity process even in the operating systems and software there has to be a way to share that you correct the problem quickly before it gets out and you have a trusted relationship to share with the private secto sector. >> thank you for being here former secretary of homeland security. we claiming cybersecurity and the digital age thank you for being here. everybody listening to us on the radio, internet, television. we want to remind everybody here secretary of -- copy of

the sec.'s book is here and he will find them after the program.