progress. but it's important in a post 9/11 world that we have a secure southern border. the world -- i'm afraid to say we're not -- i think in some ways, it's much dangerous than it was pre9/11. i remember my first visit to mexico when i was the attorney general. i visited with my counterparts in law enforcement in mexico. we had some very candid discussions about the challenges that exist with respect to mexico and immigration coming into america. they were very candid in saying their nightmare scenario was someone like -- from al qaeda coming across the southern border and committing another 9/11-scale attack because they knew what the repercussions would be. the united states would shut the border off. that would devastate their economy. so they really were worried about border security, really worried about threats to the united states coming from the southern border.

my reaction was, if they're that worried about it we should be that worried about it as well. i think focusing on the border is something that's very important. i think the economy -- i really do think that we need to have an immigration policy that understands and complements that promotes our commerce within the united states. we need to understand that immigrants are a very important part of our work force. i think that legal immigration can improve our economy can improve productivity, can result in increased jobs which will make jobs available for me citizens here in this country. i think there needs to be more of a focus -- immigration policy should be more focused on our economy, driven by our economic needs. we should have visas for skilled workers. we need -- in today's economy

and today's security situation i think those are the two drivers of what our economic -- what our immigration policy should be going forward. >> what about a so-called pathway to citizenship? >> well, i think -- pathway to citizenship is something that's politicized. i think it's one of the main issues that has made it difficult to achieve any kind of legislation to make any kind of progress on this issue. the truth of the matter is, the reality is is that many of the people that come into this country do not couldme to obtain citizenship. they come to this country to pursue a better life for themselves and for their family, their children. so becoming a citizen is not the primary objective. obviously, i think if the united states were to say, we're going to make everyone a citizen everyone would say -- these immigrants would say, great, we would like that but that's not why they come here. for me, that would sort of be a

secondary objective in terms of if people have been here a while, if they don't have a criminal record, have paid taxes, they can provide for their own support, then i would have no objection to citizenship in the long run provided, however, that they not be able to obtain citizenship in front of those people who have been waiting patiently outside our borders and have followed the law. i think it would be unfair to them and send a terribly wrong signal if we provided citizenship to these folks who have been in this country, came to this country unlawfully. if we provided citizenship in advance of those who followed the rules i think that would be a tremendous mistake. >> in your chapter, mexico's impact, you and your co-author write, the american people may resist the change if necessary, but america's leaders must commit to long-term thinking and explain why our efforts with mexico are good for america. additionally, our political leadership will have to be tactful when dealing with

mexico. our southern neighbor is a sovereign nation and rightfully proutd of its heritage and nationality, demands for reform by outsiders will certainly fall on deaf ears. we must keep in mind that some of mexico's problem are unfortunately to some degree our problems and like wise what is in mexico's best economic interest is also usually in america's best interest. anything you want to add to that, explain? >> i'm not sure i have anything else to add than i firmly believe that. as i said earlier people come to this country, migrate into this country because they are in pursuit of a better life, better economic conditions and better opportunities. if, in fact that were the situation in mexico, i think we would have less unlawful immigration. we try to be realistic in the assessment of what can be done.

politically, we have to be careful about, for example spending resources, spending dollars in mexico. many american citizens would rightly say, why are we doing that? we have our own problems here in the united states. we need to focus on those problems. we would have to deal with that. as you just read, mexico is a proud country. i think there's a long history of not resentment but they have a great deal of pride in their own country. they would only be so much that we could do. we have a great deal of cooperation today. we need to build on that and see what we can do to help with their economy, to share resources, to share intelligence, which is ongoing today. there are things that we can do. but i think more needs to be done. mexican authorities, if you ask them, they have an understanding that there are some institutional improvements that should be made in terms of the legal system, the criminal

justice system. there are things that i think would improve conditions in mexico. and i think we have some progressive leaders forward thinking individuals in mexico. these are things that we worked on. i'm assuming and i hope that those efforts are continuing today. >> who is your co-author? >> david strange is a good friend of mine from texas. he's an immigration expert. i am not an immigration expert in terms of knowing the technical aspects of the immigration act. i felt it important to have someone joining me on this project that could -- who had that level of expertise. so david has that -- is an immigration expert. he is currently taking a leave of absence from his practice in texas and is now a student at georgetown pursuing nationalm/

security law degree. so i've enjoyed working with david. he provided the appropriate level of expertise on this issue, which when you talk about immigration, you are talking about a lot of immigration experts around the country who know immigration act very well better than i do. i felt it important to have someone like david on board in this effort. i think what we have here is a product i think that's fair, i think it's balanced and hopefully it will stimulate some discussion. it will make progress in a comprehensive legislation going forward. >> former attorney general alberto gonzalez is our guest, attorney general from 2005 to 2007. prior to that, white house counsel, a texas supreme court

justice, general council to governor bush in texas and currently dean of belmont university school of law in nashville, tennessee, where -- from where he joins us. eric in maryland, republican line you are first up. please go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: i want to say on the new immigration law i don't see how you are saying they have to pass a background check and all that stuff. they have broken our law by coming into the country illegally. if i break the law, i go to jail. they will be rewarded with citizenship. it's a slap in the face to everyone who has gone through the process properly. i don't see how it's fair or even remotely fair to everybody who has to sit and wait and these people because they break the law and have established income and a place to stay, that they get it before everybody else. >> judge? >> well, of course here in this country anyone who breaks the law suffers consequences for it.

often times it's a fine, sometimes going to jail. our proposal would require they pay back -- they pay a penalty for the fact that they did come into the country unlawfully. i don't know why we're giving them any kind of preference in that situation than anyone else who breaks the law. again, they would be required to pay a penalty pay back taxes. and my preference would be that they not be afforded citizenship before anyone else who got in line and followed the rules. so i don't see how in fact, this would be called amnesty, because many people say, well, this is amnesty. but amnesty is a blanket forgiveness by sovereign government to a group of individuals. that would include granting a pardon. and granting a pardon is an act of forgiveness without exacting a penalty. that's not what we are proposinge

ing here. people who say this is amnesty, they politicize the issue. in reality, that's not what we're proposing at all. >> from years 2000 to 2009, alberto gonzalez writes over 10 million immigrants acquired lawful, permanent resident status in the united states. you go on to write -- my pen fell out and i lost the chapter that i was going to -- it was a change to the visa system so that people cannot over stay their visas. what kind of changes would you like made? >> here is the issue we have. the numbers vary. i think experts will disagree about this in terms of the number of people here unlawfully today. 30%, 50% came to this country lawfully under a valid visa. what happens is they are in this country, they like being in this country and their visa expires and they don't want to go home.

so they stay in the country. in an unlawful status. we don't have the neck nichltmechanisms to deal with visa over stayers. this is a very difficult issue, because what it requires is it requires there to be better communication between universities and the government between employers and the government. it requires better -- i think a better interaction between the u.s. government and the home countries so we can identify -- we have a better idea and better track, people that are here on visas and when they are set to expire. perhaps make them -- sort of inadmissible status in the event they over stay their visa. at that point there is no longer any chance whatsoever that they can come back into the country once we find them no chance they could become a u.s. citizen. what we have to do is explore ways to really discourage visa over stayers. that's a significant part of our

problem. let me also mention that the fact that such a large percentage of people that are here unlawfully came here through a valid visa means that there's limited utility in border security. the fact that people talk about a fence that may be fine for preventing some people from coming across our southern border. but it's not going to do a thing with respect to the over stayers. this is a very -- in my judgment a very important discussion in terms of making progress in solving the high numbers of people that are here in this country in an unlawful status. >> wayne is in harrisburg, pennsylvania, democrat line. go ahead. >> caller: president bush, the cia and obama, as a citizen, i wouldn't care what they did to make sure that the american

people are safe. and about immigration when you have two professional people that know what they are talking about, they will never come to a discussion. so what i say is let the illegals be legal. i don't care how many. i don't care if they take people's jobs or whatever. the economy is bad. so let them come in. that's all i have to say. >> i respect that viewpoint. i disagree with that viewpoint. i think if you are going to be in a country, should be here under some kind of lawful status. every sovereign nation has the authority, there's no question about this, every sovereign nation has the authority to determine who is in their country, who is within its borders. i think that's perfectly appropriate, particularly when you talk about immigration policy can impact your economy and how immigration policy can

quite frankly affect your security position. i respectfully disagree with the caller's viewpoint. i think it's important that anyone in this country should be here in a lawful status, whether as a citizen naturalized citizen, lawful permanent resident, whatever. i think it's important that people that are here are in some kind of lawful status. i think one very positive offshoot of that is once you are here in a lawful status, i have no problem at that point with getting a driver's license being entitled to benefits not all the benefits of being a citizen. for me it's easier to reconcile this notion of having someone in the country be entitled to benefits like a driver's license if they're in some kind of lawful status. the notion that would you have someone not a lawful status walk into into a government office and get a driver's license, doesn't

scare with me. i think it's important to have them in a lawful status. >> tom you are on. >> caller: yes. it's not related to immigration. it's something i wrestled with for 20 years. hold political prisoners and the laws don't extend beyond our borders, could you explain to me how general noriaga is in a prison in the country? >> i had a hard time understanding your comments. i think you were having a hard time understanding how the general is in prison in this country. honestly, i'm not familiar with the specifics of the confinement. i'm not in a position to respond to your question. >> let's move on to john in iowa, republican line. >> caller: thank you so much. i very much enjoy c-span and

look forward to it every morning. i'm honored to speak to mr. gonzalez. he was talking about international law. my question comes back to, should it have ever happen to a high-ranking military officer or high-ranking cia agent in afghanistan were to be captured and have to endure these enhanced interrogation techniques, would we recognize that as being lawful? would that be okay? would we scream torture if that happened to our people? >> well, of course, the big difference that many people lose sight of the fact is that i'm hopeful -- i think this would be the case -- that our people would not have engaged in war crimes, would not have killed innocent civilians, would not have beheaded people. they would be entitled to additional protections. that's the main difrngsference. it would give us more moral

authority to raise objection about the treatment of our citizens. from my perspective, that's one very important difference in terms of our position, our legal position, our moral position to raise objections and with respect to al qaeda for example, raising objections to the way that someone was treated. >> you write in your book of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants presently in the u.s., we support placing those who are eligible and without a criminal record into temporary lawful status after they pay a fine and back taxes. we do not oppose their becoming eligible for permanent lawful status if they learn english and american civics and pay taxes, provided that those who follow the law are not disadvantaged. we also support providing relief to young people brought here unlawfully by their parents.

a couple of executive orders that the president has signed, the dreamers a couple years ago, and then the recent one, his executive action pretty much does this, doesn't it? >> it does. but, of course part of the challenge or part of the problem of executive action is that it is temporary. it can be undone by the president, of course, and can be undone by next president can be undone by the congress if it passed a law that is signed into law by the president. my concern with what president obama has done and certainly with the most recent action is that it came following an election in which i think the american people send a strong signal about what they wanted to see, the level of cooperation they wanted to see between the president and the congress, which hasn't been very good. i think we all understand and agree with that. so rather than allowing the new congressional leadership to deal with this give them an opportunity to deal with

immigration, the president comes out immediately and says, i'm going do this through executive action. i have given them long enough. i think the timing was really sort of a slap in the face. i think what i worry about is that in giving relief -- in giving temporary relief to three to five million people, it made it more difficult to obtain the real objective which is a comprehensive, permanent, long-term relief to people. so i think from that perspective, i think what the president did was short sighted. and i think it was a mistake. the other thing that i worry about what the president did was the repercussions of taking executive action. i think many people believe that the level of children coming up in central america, i believe it was last summer, it was motivate motivated by the notion that here in america we don't enforce our immigration laws. there are unintended consequences when you take executive action without focusing all the other components of immigration

policy. so for that reason, i think it's a mistake. finally, i think the action is short sighted. short sighted from the perspective of democratic lawmakers, because at some point, we will have a republican president. he will wield the executive pen. he may wield the executive pen on a program or policy that democratic lawmakers may believe are very, very important. this does set a precedent. this is really -- this is more than about immigration policy. this is about the institutional prerogatives of the elected branchs of government. who should decide who is our immigration policy? should it be the president or should it -- beginning with the congress and with the law and then that law signed -- that bill becoming a law signed by the president? that's a very important dialogue a very important discussion. from my perspective, i think we are better off if our immigration policy is based upon

a bill pacessed by congress and signed into law by the president. >> barbara is in chicago. >> caller: hi. >> we're listening. go ahead with your question or comment. >> caller: i'm interested in his -- the two subjects. >> barbara, i'm going to put you on hold. you know the rules. you've got to turn the volume down on your tv. otherwise, we get a delay and we get feedback. somebody will talk to you. nash is on from charleston south carolina. hi. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. how are you doing? >> go ahead. >> caller: i want to quickly -- you said people don't come here to become citizens. there are people who are leaving to come here to have children,

take the children away where they become citizens at 18 or 21 years when the children become adult. isn't that the way of becoming an american citizen? isn't it time to make that constitutional? i think -- i believe every country has a right to protect the nation. everyone should be free to come to america. >> what was your process for immigrating to the u.s.? >> my process? >> the process you went through? >> i went through due process. >> how long did it take you? >> caller: i went through my wife. >> through your wife. through the family connection? okay. thank you. alberto gonzalez, any response? >> i'm not sure that i understood all of nash's question or comment. obviously, we have a constitution. it's clear that if you are born

here you are an american citizen. that's from my perspective. that's good policy. if we don't like it if the majority of people don't like it in this country, obviously, we can try to change the constitution. i'm not sure i understood specifically his question. >> i think he was just making a comment that he had gone through the process essentially. that's how -- every country has the right to protect its own borders. >> no question about that. every country is sovereign. that's one of the aspects of being a sovereign nation as i said earlier is to determine -- being able to determine who is within a country's border. we do have a process. that's why i do believe it's important that whatever we do with the folks here unlawfully that we don't disadvantage those who have been waiting in line, who have followed the rules. i think that's very very important. this notion of instant citizenship i think it's not the american way. on the other hand i think we need to be realistic about the

fact that we cannot deport 11 million people. we talked about this during bush administration administration. i remember having conversations with a team of experts getting together and decides whether that was realistic. think about how poorly the government does other functions. this is not something the government would be capable of doing. even if we were successful, in my judgment it would devastate certain industries. farming, construction. i don't think that's the right way to go. the right way to approach is to determine who is in fact -- who in fact can contribute to our economy. who has not committed a crime. who can pay a penalty. who can pay back taxes. for those kinds of folks and we need them in this xhupcommunity, they're not a danger to the country, we put them into temporary legal status. that's the right way to go. >> barbara, go ahead. >> caller: hello. it's interesting that mr. gonzalez is very interested in

law and the american way. if he is so interested he is absolutely violated the american way and law. since he wishes to punish anyone who has broken the law, he should lead the parade. he is one of the most evil enablers of this whole torture business that is now being widely exposed. >> judge gonzalez? >> well, i respect the caller's opinion. i'm not sure how to respond to that other than i know that i worked -- i know that i worked with a team of dedicated lawyers in whitehouse at the cia and other agencies working hard to ensure we provided a framework so that we didn't violate the law. president bush was very clear in his directive that we would not engage in torture. was there a way to collect information that would be consistent with our laws? the lawyers provided a

framework. whether or not the agency decided -- would make the decision to move forward with that framework, we know now that the agency in some cases exceeded the requirements, the guidance given by the department of justice and there have been and should be consequences with respect to that. am i saying that the bush administration was perfect in the way it executed the war on terror? no. it was not perfect. much like we have imperfection today with the way that president obamacarerys forth on the war or terror. this say tough business. sometimes when we are dealing with a brutal, ruthless enemy you know you have to take strong measures. those measures should always be consistent in the judgment of the lawyers with the -- with the constitution and with the law. sometimes you make mistakes. that's the very nature of the -- i think the cia director, john brennan acknowledged that yesterday. >> i will read something from

your book. conservative and compassionate approach to immigration reform. i would like you to expond oun this. the republican party has hurt itself because of the harsh way that some republicans have spoken about immigration reform. >> i believe that's true. i think that one of the benefit -- george w. bush had a way of connecting with people. he had a way of especially connecting with hispanics. part may come from the fact he was a former governor of a border state. the message, the messenger and the tone is very, very important, in my judgment if you want outreach if you want to reach the hispanic community. that doesn't mean you will have total agreement with the policies. but someone like george bush was able to somehow connect with the hispanic community. some of the rhetoric that i hear from the right i think is very%dm unfortunate. absolutely no compassion

whatsoever treating them as the worst of the worst criminals and that they should be removed immediately, even though that is impossible in my judgment. i think it's the rhetoric has been extremely harsh. we need to tone down the rhetoric. we need to acknowledge that these are human beings that we're talking about. most of them have families. they came into this country to pursue a better life just like our ancestors did. like the ancestors of these republicans. we need to just not lose sight of that. i'm not suggesting we allow people into this country that we provide instant citizenship. but in deciding this policy and moving forward with comprehensive immigration reform, we need to do so with an understanding of both, that we are a nation of laws but we are also a nation of immigrants. >> brian is in michigan on our independent line. good morning. >> caller: good morning.

i hope i can keep on one subject. most americans are not prejudice and we don't look at the harsh harshest line. what we don't understand about our government and people is this. what you are saying you use the word sovereignty earlier. that word is not being used too much anymore. are we seen as arrogant americans who are in debt? we have made a lot of mistakes that we keep making over and over. have decided that mexico even though a great country, even though -- you look at the demographics and where they are as far as latitude goes they could do a lot more than they are doing. they need these fine people. get rid of the corruption in their country so that they can be a sovereign, strong country. when you say that we're dispassionate are some on the

right are hard line, no we don't want to give up on mexico. let me end on this. you have one industry and you are in charge of our law enforcement in this country. you know you have a cruise ship industry. i have sailed. i see fine cruise ships that are flagged from liberia and other countries. we know that this is not right. why don't we shift the -- this is one idea. ship the cruise ship industry over to mexico. there's one simple idea. >> that's brian in mixchigan talking about immigration reform. >> i'm not sure that i understood all of the points that brian was getting to. if he is suggesting that i believe we should give up on mexico, nothing could be further from the truth. i think we ought to try to find ways to help our neighbor. they are our friends. we ought to be helpful to them and to the extent that improvements can be -- can occur in mexico, including dealing

with corruption rampant there. we have our own corruption here in this country. but to the extent that that can be accomplished i think you will have more successful economic policies in mexico come forward. i think that will be the benefit of not only mexican citizens but ultimately to the united states. >> next call comes from timothy in west virginia, republican line. >> caller: thank you. my question is with regard to texas enhancement law. they do have enhancement laws that force those who have committed misdemeanor crimes of the same nature more than three times into felonyies which carry a state prison sentence from two to ten years. i understand a lot of illegalefc immigrants that have come over here have come over here more than three times. are they still subject to texas enhancement law being one of the border states? can you explain more the

separation between the federal aspect of it? i understand they want to grant them amnesty. but the separation between federal and the state doj regulations and laws for those of the border states. >> i disagree with one component of i think what you are saying in terms of granting amnesty. i'm not sure who is suggesting -- i'm not aware of any responsible republican -- >> coming to csis. my name is jim lewis. i will be moderating this event which is entitled enabling the internet of things. we have a strong panel. one of the republicans we're doing this project here at csis is in thinking about -- every year we think what should we look at? the internet is changing radically as new technologies and new software change how

people will interact with it and how machines will interact with each other and how people interact with machines. the internet is going to be very different in a few years. it's on the path to that. the internet of things is part of that. right? you always get some number when you go to it the events how there are -- in 20 years there will be 50 billion. there are more devices than people. it's about twice as many devices as the entire population of the world. there will be profound social political and economic affects. what we have been thinking -- the panel will touch on this. a set of problems. first problem for us is, how do we extract the full economic benefit from this change? this is something that i have been thinking about since i first learned to -- unwillingly to program a computer. this software stuff can make things easier.

how do we get the full economic benefit? second, how do we not get in the way of inknow vags? if you think back to the start of the internet we didn't regulate, we didn't have rules. we let things happen. in the large part because we didn't know where the market was going to take us. that gives more credit to the people who did it and having foresight than is fair. you don't want to make assumptions about what are the things people and companies will choose to use and then regulate based on that. that would be what i call the european error. another problem is what do we do with all the data? right? we already know that there's more data than people can deal with. there are technologies to deal with that data to make use of it, data agoóp gags is an important part of the internet model. it's something we will think

about. one of the things i think my initial thinking is, all data does not have the same value. sometimes you see privacy schemes that say anything generated by a machine that a person owns is also pii. i don't think that's necessarily right. i don't care if you know what my car's tire pressures are. you can get yourself into fun knots. i have been asking officials if myuñ cookie -- if my refridge rater uses cookies, will it have to notify me. the answer is yes. we want to think. how we treat data. one size does not fit all. a bit of science fiction. the panel doesn't have to talk about this. in looking down the road, how are wem&÷ going to interface with the internet of things? how is it that we will -- i like to -- you have the jack in the back of your head. that's probably not going to happen. but it could. how will we interface? it will probably be some more

powerful kind of -- something like siri, a vocal command. it may not be. we don't know. looking down the road, we have a lot of issues before us. even more issues we have a lot of=lfé opportunities. that's kind of why we're doing this. let me introduce the panel in the order i have them. matt is the deputy division chief of communer science division. he promotes)várong cyber security practices, metrics. i have known matt a while. i'm grateful he is willing to come and speak. hillary cane from toyota, has been at toyota for two years. was on the hill. did a lot with the committee with the staff director for the committee on technology. some interesting things to say about what toyota is doing.

smart cars are one of the favorite iterations of internet of things. i'm looking forward to your remarks. mark chief solutions architect worldwide public sector amazon. he leads the people who think about the solutions that amazon will lose. he does@s@o architecture for both government and private sector customers. thank you for coming. and finally, jeff green the director of government affairs for north america senior policy counsel? i thought my title was bad. jeff, we all -- many of us know jeff from his time on the hill. he did escape and go to it's the sponsor of this project and this event. we are grateful to them. jeff comes out of a background

with homeland security and cyber security. some of our panelists will -- i don't know if it's matt or jeff on what the n-stack has been doing. i have talked about as much as i should. why don't we just go down the row and have each of the panelists talk? then we will open it up for questions.88 malt matt, do you want to start? >> thanks, jim. my name is matt. i'm from the nationala)r institution of standards and technology a technology agency under the u.s. department of commerce. we are one of the many both u.s. government organizations and>ó÷ organizations kind of worldwide that are conducting research, development and looking at technological needs that need to be developed understood or( standardized to fully realize some of the points that jim talked about around the internet of g4fq÷things. fostering innovation and

understanding and deriving the knowledge that we need from the large data sets that will be generated from the internet of things. as a technologys are focused on standards measures metrics and the technologies that are needed in order to allow for this to occur. we are anafor agency under the u.s. department of commerce. as such, we are reallyb! focused on the economics and the innovation and how this can be used to assist and spur new growth and u.s. industries. we are very interested in the standardization requirements as well as the r;underlying measures, metrics metrics here. we0pl look at it through the entire architecture of it. right now, there's a lot of work. we're in this skrum'1s going on right nowézph laser discs, vhs, blue ray and

dvd all being developed at the same time around what is and what are the standards to be used under the internet of things. it's going to take a while before this standardization allowing full scope of interface settles out. in the meantime, our role is to work with u.s. industry in the standards bodies and advance the interests where we can in order to acceleration the use of adoption of this. we look at the internet

virtualization stack or applicationnp?qy interface where they can be controlled or where the data can be gathered from. from the very small very distributed system on chipq[r sensors, wem what are the calibration requirements needed for the sensors? that can vary (

engine or somewhere where there's a knowledge derivative an littic engine that will/ fl@ allow us to make decision based on policy from the data being generated. that was a fancy way of saying, my fridge will tell me when i'm low on peanut butter if i told it i carefqiy about peanut butter, because i have a peanut betutter policy. i will be alerted by the sensor which derives data from the physicals@úf infrastructure. that will derive an actionrts]ñ which will be me buying more butter. that's a simplistic example. this can explodekéj out which scale for efficiency economies understanding, conservation of resources. there's different areas where this is being used to great advantage. some areas areé$fkñ preventative maintenance.

i was an an airplane this mç!@÷ morning. my aircraft has multiple'$"/ sensors on it deriving physical data off the aircn< rame everything from oil pressure temperature, speed, m@onvibration. that's all being(f5 pumped into a back end cloud so that rather than waiting for skwenled maintenance on they something seems or starts to look out of place, the air frame manufacturers can ground it and conduct effective, preventative maintenance and do it with açb knowledge base that conserves time of the repair people as well as the resources that go into it. all the way through to smart agriculture, which is the other case where we can apply water or pesticides or spot plant rather than applying to fields overall. conserves resources, reduces pollution, cheaper overallpqoñ and yields greater yield. those are just some examples. we have concerned about system

on chip design where how would these things fail? understanding of the ppodata what are the data calibration needs? what are the protocols to pull the data off the accept sore? what are the security requirements that are needed across that stack? what are the machine to machine identity requirements that are needed? how do you control them? do we have enough pipe to move all this data around? how do we apply understanding of the error@ those analytics on the tofhléw"uju)ut knowledge? these are things we're interested in as a science and technology agency looking at the measures metrics standards. hopefully to apply to allowsvv or innovation and application in many areas in areas that we haven't even imagined yet. >> thankfaá1you matt. one of the things i hope we can come back to is what you were

talking -- the industrial internet of things, which will be an important part of productivity growth. that's different than hillary will talk about. ,m7t" not. >> maybe not. who knows. i probably don't need this microphone, because i have a very loud voice. i will try to not scream into it. if i'm making anyone deaf, raise your hand. i will make note there is no question that vehicles are going to be a partg of this internet of things as we move forward. the thing that i struggle with and where i wanted to start right now is talking4k form that's going to take. there's thisjk l internet of#)fht things idea gets thrown out there a lot. as it applies in vehicle space, there's questions about what that means. i will give you examples of how we're trying to slice and dice it. you have -- you could have internet of things in the vehicle in the context of the multimedia systems that are now becoming ubiquitousg6f+in vehicles.

that's when you get in, newer cars have the screen. you can ac7çe)q nternet. you can check your open table reservation. that's an interface in your vehicle. i personally don't think of that as thef[brnet of that's a new sort of mobile platform. right? the same thing as your smart phone. but some people think of that as the inter bñnet of things because it's in a thing. then you can haver]a[ serious here. we talk about the policy implications. they are different for that versus some other forms of internet of things. you can have what matt was talking about in the context of an airplane in a vehicle. sensors that are monitoring what's going on on the vehicle, trying to detect anomalies or issues that need to be addressed. that information being transferred to somebody who can do something about something that's happening in the vehicle. that's your industrial'pw internet-type idea. you have internet of things in

the context of vehicle to vehicle communication and vehicle to infrastructure communication, which we are just now on the cusp of seeing. this is technology that's been deployed in the world but is now very close to coming to be in the united states. this is primarily going to be used in the early days for crash avoidance. the'èñ ability of vehicles to be able to detect a possible collision threat and take action the idea here is, more than 30,000 a year in the united states alone lose their lives in car accidents. which is a humongous amount of people if you think about it. it's equivalent to two jumbo jets fallingq1dí out of the sky every week. right? it's a lot of people that are dieing every year in car accidents. what we're finding is, we're not able to make the gains we want to make in the area by addressing what happens to a vehiclew;á a crash occurs.

where we will make gabes is preventing that crash all together.h6ó this vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication is going to enable that. toyota's vision is that eventually that sort of communication augmented or sumpplemented. the car itself will take action to avoid it. it's a combination of the sensor based collision avoid answer technology you are seeing now with increased automation, coupled with this environment. we canyq5z do a 360-degree crash avoidance system on the vehicle and prevent the crashes all together. i wanted to draw this distinction. for the first category, i do see that as internet of things. the sensors detectinga6#9n problems within the system, i see as the internet of things.

there are a variety of -- i know we will delve into this later. a variety of policy issues implications. i'm not going to talk about the first category which i'm saying is not internet of things in terms of policy issues. we see a lot more concerns about privacy in that space than we tend to see in the other areas. we certainly do have growing questions and concerns abouta privacy of drivers and consumers, people seem to think that they -- i'm not saying this is not correct. seem to think that they have a greater entitlement to privacy in their vehicles than they dodub'x when it comes to their smart phone. it's an extension of their home. it's very weird. it's there. it's real. we hear it. we feel it. consumers tell us, the car is a special place.=b÷a@r(t&háhp &hc% there are obviously growing cyber security concerns.

those tend to be with the coupling of the communic;@ ]÷ @f cf1 o with the automation. if there's the ability for someone to hack into your car and take over the electronic operation of your vehicle, tell the of the vehicle, tell the car to brake or make a sudden left turn, you could have a bad scenario. bad things could happen. there is a unique -- well, okay. i say unique and then not unique and then i will stop talking. it's a uniqu2!jfu)h liability, right? people seem: theek to the concept of smart cars. i would argue it's unique to automation in general when you have systems making decisions rather than a person making a decision./?q& who is responsible if something goes wrong. in the context of a self driving car, if the car brakes when it is not supposed to or accelerates when it is not supposed to and something else happens, who is responsible for that? there are questionsc-ñ around that.

we have a lot of concerns in the regulatory space. i can be honest that thedl# government is slow -- not nhtsa, but the department of transportation is generally slow on where the industry is headed. there are some who would argue there should be no regulation. i think everyone would think that was great at toyota or any other auto company. the reality is thej is never going to be unregulated. that same sort of tendency to regulate will hold true in that environment. if that's the case we need the department of transportation to be moving quicker. i have a lot< answer questions later.cbá.s.xéiz

we see a strong link between cloud computing32) and things. you see dwie dwooiss generating data which people haven'tx o< managed before. on the other hand, you have these powerful new worldwide platforms'/crú where you can essentially go bynz the hour or gigabyte. not surprisingly] at start-ups like nest drop-cam or oh other players. the people doing all kinds of sensor-type applications on the end user devices what you will see,]6ñ accompanying that is they~r useq!3t÷ of cloud computing. that raises issues@$ security analytics and50f÷ç so forth. cz

now are essentially sensors for some networks. for example,6qdñcid:um5@v if you use ways for mapping you are a4"vñ sensor in their network feedingemf5o back into their wcnb there is an interesting policy implication. in boston, it developed through hack-a-thon. people adopted it as an official city program. you run an amount indication in)ábeñ the background on your phone. thóa application is looking at the axle rom ter. people get jostled and move. but if it happyupi thousands of people always jostled in one place of the road every time you pass over that place guess what? there is a giant pothole there. not only do they know how many citizens are affected by potholes5 street repair. in boston you know this is an important÷#pd/5# topic. this is a citizen sensor model. the citizen becomes an extension of what the government needs to

know to accomplish the task. there are varieties of that from the puáprivate play like the street bump is a government program.8#h#üñy move it is working around the world to create the model around public transportation. they now have dozens of large cities that integrated bus and train platforms with the move it application so the user can get a betterñcg system. they can get constant feedback in data they could never get before.u this is an interesting transition from mobile platforms into@"gi/x e"[net of things we see going on.' s# one of the things going on people talk about big data.

one of the that's new is people are storing things when they don't knowbb@ñk whether or not it'sv" useful. that could be a property of big data. in the past we didn't want to waste the money on data that we didn't see immediate use for.úcyky ?bíñ people don't have that attitude. the!jrqñ attitude of28xz commercial concerns and government. storage is so cheap, let's store everything.(jwñ later on the data we are storing hasw powerful properties and unique capabilities.iy ì(t&háhp &hc% but then what we turn intob'áb p r(t&háhp &hc% data scientists. we explore data, look for correlations.%jl@@r(t&háhp &hc% we hope there is causation./piatjóñ internet of things is playing into that..4t allowing you to -- let's store the data for three months and run a project to see if there is

data. if not we'll only pay for with a we are using. that's another correlation you're seeing. the final theme i want to bring5ñ up is security which has been talked about already..tqev security and standards. they go together. or they can go together. on the@ zx0 security front the theme9q i want to bring up is people are having to rethink about how they conceive of security."qyz i'mxbá+nside my fire wall. everything is good and safe. you can't think that way. everything is connecting. how it will be in terms of. +ç protocols, application, all the

things that traditionally we cannot think about now0&zñ much. this is a theme that's already arisen in the mobile world. it will become even more important in the internet of finally on the standards front, i have been in this industry for 20-some years and i have been through the various standards. i worked for microsoft. i have been through standardser wars.íg@ñ5l between dataff- using yarn and presto from facebook and things like that. very, very different model than the traditional years ago when people would have to choose a fundamental data@va architecture not interoperable with other architectures. the protocols are there.

slightly more powerfuládñ systems will use tls for secure transactions. it's out there and the differences between the different approaches will take it really small. i don't think we'll have a big standards war with like we may have seen 15 20 years ago arowcb

think of it as a compul ai framework which distributes work with across commodity computers in a network that would have cost millions. now you can do it onnings 4ñ inexpensive machines. >> i miss my deck ten. so jeff. >> thanks for coming today..l jeff with semantec. i will talk about work that i did as part of the national security telecommunications advisory committee. it's a presidential idea. typically telcos or other information technology companies.

then their)o day to day. this is run out of dhs.eakç it's by doing studies and reports that goe president. they approved t#ys one of which was an internet of things report. i cochaired the staff work group. that was a year's worth of wok. a scoping effort followed by an eight-month study anduhfl writing period. throughout the process we met with dozens of subjectrbcñ matter experts. we had field trips, a lot of interesting debates. it was a long process leading to the report. i will give a summary of what we found the and what the foundations 1sf÷were. i won't read from the report with with one exception. there is one passage that summarizes --xóñ and this is only 50 pages which for a government

sefrt good. there is one summary which captures wherei out. i will reads there is a small49x+ñ window to ensure iot is adopted in a way to maximize security and minimize risk. the country fails to do-7ç so it will cope with the consequences for generations. there is a lot going on in the short quote. one of the key points itú't tries to drive and if you go to the report, the preamble is a lot of opportunity in iot.

window of the time frame between 2 and 5 years to influence iot!d:hor(t&háhp &hc% adoption processes significantly. then theu/yk9> ujjttj of getting it wrong that will be with us for decades. some will be significant. some will not. if your wifi enabled toothbrush is hacked, not a big deal. if the water system is compromised or the power system that supplin2á6÷ electricity to the wifi toothbrush, that's a bigger problem. in terms of the key findings this is shorthand all in the doc. it's by no means everything the report had in it. the first finding is that iot is here now. it's for disaster response, governmental use, transportation management. it's being used today. in manufacturing fault detection, ordering processes.z it's critical infrastructure. iot devices, sensors et cetera. they have been around for a long time. they weren't always called iots.

one thing to understand is this is not a flip a switch, the internet went live for public on a certain date. this is a gradualax the name is being applied to things that have been around forbaa quite a while. ethics was the cyber security83(rñ implications of the iot. billions of new endfwv8z points. some are very small. i have read about future happy meal toys with sensors and wifi in them. i don't think we are far from that. things aree] world and impact things.of-÷82uñ whether old2 that cannot host security on board or new03

direction. go to matt's peanut butter policy. his fridge told him to buy peanut butter but may alert the butter. then the machine will put it on the truck and he won't be involved in6á÷ the decision. >> the amazon drone will deliver it. >> exul ey or hillary's car sensing the action.6 !w 3-d printing at home. toys.

we'll see the reverse.2,tñ:aq!q hobbyists are ?9w raspberry pie or oh doing things finding their way into systems. somef(b that are connected to or empowering critical systems. all the vulnerabilityies inherent in this# >i%q%1u)q ountry. iot is a convergence of information and operational technoaék often described 6%dñ a conflict or a collision between the two. you have very different approaches to security'2zdñ and particularly cyber security in those disciplines. in the operational technology world, you are talking about lifecycle of machinery swapping out power generation plants, water control systems. we are talking decades. i.t., you're looking at years. o.t. and gates. i.t. is virtual security. in terms of reliability the

holy grail of i.t. was the four nines which still allows you time to update thecf systems take them down if you need to.÷hpdg you can't take down a water pump to update orc@j8 patcht- the latest -- tuesday. you can't take down the water with pump feeding the washington area. it makes it very hard to align the needs of i.t. and o.t. and that creates gaps that potential adversaries or peoplef[it looking to make nuisance can exploit. you have older network computers now being connected to network computers which creates hgmwqáy currentiz] governance structures areuí inadequate. technology always moves faster than policy. but the report nstat concluded the gap is widening hr than normal reflected by vlñ the fact that documents for.t security don't mention the we#iot. in fact there are many4agñ definitions out(ncfx there in other

government and private sector documents that end up being conflicting.w2uc2mébñ in terms of recommendations, and i promisel1> in a good wayment needs+"pa to come up with the definition for the u.s. government. i should say something about the recommendations. the recommendationses have to be at a presidential level. number'xaxwtwo actionable forwdpd the president. it's noti hñ going to be direct to private sector. it will be what can the government do in certain areas. so the first one, the shoal rule was nst should define what iot is for the government.

it won't be probably the last definition, but at least a definition. the government can use it to determine how it is now using iot and how it will use it in the near future. through that, look at what with interconnections and interdependencies they have come up with and come up with contingency plans for managing the inevitablezmmçx threats, vulnerabilities that will be spread around through them. another short-term recommendation is a government-wide task force to plan u.s. government strategy for dealing with iot, identify gaps practices and technologies and update aware withness and fq["táraining internal to the government and public efforts someone who guys a -- buys a÷yç fitbit doesn't think about the keks the device has. i have one in my pocket. i see two6ms÷ up here. there is security in connecting ]l1= it to my phone. maybe not as much. people want to think of the data being passed around.]

also encourage6kç academia to develop specific programs. in the near term it could be in a public, private partnership to work on iot deployment guidelines, manage related cyber ?jx(t&háhp &hc% risk and implications. thecrl8háwo structures )já in the report are first the process used to develop the framework and the report to@ l the president on sign ohher security. those wereí%

includes the training we need. we talked about it constantly because it is important.ú8bu3v the problem is greater in r kñ 6jiot. there aren't many programs at that aspect of it.ñ happy to take questions on that or anything el(]f4 >> i have questions. so maybe i will start. i will start with one that comes fromhúqóefqp a story. hillary was telling me a while ago.

i mistated that. that's how i heard icéh# it wasn't true. think of a blind corner and the car knows in advance what's on the other side of the blind corner. i thought that's cool. it's not an on board sensor on the car.

it's sensors built into the infrastructure. on the other side communicating with the car saying, slow down. there ises something. let me start with that question for all of you. what are the essential infrastructures we need to invest in as we move ahead? people talk about -- >> i'm happy to start. what you said is coîwh lg ezk/lzñb"3ñlbhñ% louk:qg aa0'p;

we have an interesting van tanl point. our global headquarters are in japan. we have been able to experienc=ss$/h(t&háhp &hc% what's happening in japan with intelligent infrastructure versus xúiáh$appening here in the united states. japan, the japanese government years ago decided comgaqvgúññ,w:dd-@x!pftafvññm

sswi%÷2k1 ÷¢a :"so

infrastructure. it u00l"*q looked at with the entire system. they released a smart challenge.n! we are looking at cities to participate with nsf.? when that affects my population

the most or least. and make decisions aroundxañ distribution of resources, energy goods and services and people within my city to the greatest effect and efficiencies. this needs to be looked at to avoid potentialáz.y conflicts and tox leverage existing(u-w systems into the new knowledge based trying to derive them. #t what ways is. pretty good. it's a mobile act that you use as m)+$kjáj u(áq gy it's uploading your speed and distance as your vehicle moves creating real time data. so it's another solution so if you get enough peopletcñi on a volunteer basis willing tou8 contribute into the system. i have real time data about

traffic jams. maybe not to hey there is a slow[ there, driving to d.c. all the time from dulles. i know for sure whether it is a quarter mile ahead and will be a bottleneck between i-66 and 267. it's right there. i feel confident when i see the crawling icons on screen. i guess that's not a good example. it's always thers#"kñ it may be that the creativity of people in open markets and the fact that people can benefit. they don't require a heavyweight approach.,o#ry#bj=÷ >> you're absolutely right. in terms of what i was talking about with the vehicle infrastructure piece of this, that's less to stop traffic in the tunnel. it's less to know that there is a suggestion. we can know it from ways or

navigation that can#uf?k tell us there is congestion coming up. we needh:ñ to know exactly where the car is stopped.!%9z%eá i want to make sure we are not going to be usingqxc ways forn÷-ó collision avoidance any soon. i don't anticipate that.n"a!fky >> i will cheat and ask a second question.áqf1xí 4÷ it comes back to critical infrastructure protection. how do you manage what we would call the refresh cycle? in critical infrastructure the refresh cycle is 20 years.i as a hackererç you want to thank them for using windows 98.2k)w how do you deal with the average

car. >> 12 yooerears. >> so it would not be fully deployed until about ñ &2027. how do we deal with the refresh cycle.=m how do we deal with patching, updates. this will be an incremental process at best. do we want to try to accelerate it?&ff these are light weight sensors, inexpensive.e5ñtl low power, bandwidth, cpu.up youxdrñ look at it and the refresh occurs at the stack or in the back on analytics. then the sensor itself is as much as possible the hardware based device. rather than refresh or redeploy

it's just to ignore.hbs( if you can identify the data coming from the sensormapb of refreshing or pulling it you turn off the data or don't allow it into the analytic stack. if you need to, you redeploy.í q?3miyvo >> certainly when building newjkdç applications new 04fñsystems, making updates, frequent, easy8 painless is critical.bxxoplyhazi &háhp &hc% this is the problem with the p krrk. when you install an app move it to another pc. it's almost impossible. you have to rna stall everything. mobile phone people qvirlearned. you hit delete and it deletes

every element of that. server based containerzation is a hot topic if you follow the ip industry. following dockerer and other server basedc43:÷ containerzation. and ubiquitous refresh. amazon.com does moreu:f4x than a hundred million software deployments every year. thousands of deployments a day in real pkayñkskñtime. the system never goes down. if they hit a low balancez or a server being rebootedment they get ab]!aç functioning app. that's the>t develop. these techniques, and the industry building new things.g1 the legacy infrastructure is a different question. if i'm buildingp very light weighti$m sensor, a light weight weight piece of hardware i will have two pieces of software on fz,1

it. the main system application and thexf updater. the two are independent. the updater, i can signal to reload the device. then the%

dfbiñm=?#1ñúe% ÷ some type of system. does the data make sense. is the data acting in a way to expect it to or should it be communicating now? it will have to talk to the older systems and

there is such a thing. day. i thought about buying it and my wife wouldn't let me. probably not a lot of security it will be situational.5bñ >>v6z ejhrticular challenge in the vehicle spaces. people hang onto their cars. it's a very long time. it will]um/y undoubtedly take a fair amount of time for the full potential of the vehicle network. there are wq

it's going to take a long time for this network to come to be and there are1&f>p ways that theñ spectrum could be used right now

excellent panel. thanks for the excellent programs.[ the security issues there is little we can doq." we don't have a revolutionary5 technological solution. that jux posesn application efficiency and what have you.c it wasf second6á generators who said securities on the risk side of the ledger is not going to do much unless is@n!=( it's on the income side. can i get comments from the panel with regard to those perspectives? >> pardon me.>czñj,w@vñúdbv÷

i'm seeing a shift because,a]ávmh.f= recent events where there is a stark realization that security is a business issue. businesses who function looking at business risks that they do be it customer risk, supplier risk, financial risk, economic risk als)04 need to integrate cyber security risk into the business risk stack as they look across wholistically rather than dealing with it off to the side.nsépwm

revolutionary technologies for security would be wonderful. more often than not it's t.lplñ sit-down thoughtful riskrwcbú managementd6e decisions and sound=jkçs standu]÷-ed application. the hard grunt work of the guys that used to be in the back server room that are now more out patrolling with customers.d@ that provide you with the best bang for your buck for security. we can wait for thatt qqs silver conduct some integrateded risk management and make good sound businesses. so that'shvqn÷dw! kind of mysiñ soap box that i will get off now.?ex >> when i first started working on the issue back with on the ps mantra was we've got to get to

sea level, pay attention. they don't care about cyber security. point now for the reasons matt talked about.s÷fwn so i think to some will be on the expense side. but there is a lot more56geás o attention at the high level of corporations enabling -- we're not there yet. but there's been a significant shift. so i think you are seeing companies view it as -- in the same way that you lock the door on the warehouse but no one steals your goods. you need to lock the viral khal door, too. we are getting to a world where those things are equated as opposed to cyber security. we'll do it ifl a few extra dollars. we are getting there slowly. >> let me ask kind of a mean question. i will ask it anyhow. where do we need to regulate 5%imqññ what's number one on the hit parade.çh(

is it privacy something else? where do we need to regulate first? >> stumped them with this one. >> i don't think it's privacy.17(árl9qw7[ba(s growing concerns about privacy. the auto industry got together over the last year and two weeks a2[rp ñs:6 unveileda 3fy(hdt a énk self-regulatory code of conduct to-2 try to growing hysteria around what may happen in the vehicle space and put meaningful restrictions on the vehicle data.- we will not market to you or share it without your consent. in an effort to address

the self-regulatoryyoñhs@ q÷ approach is;orgñ :t#?v% 0/t probablybkb x more important.i@q÷ cars are so$pl heavilyjápry regulated by the department of transportation we can't do anwng without it is not yet started with one around vehicles.ktsz i don't think nhtsa has much clue where torj the time is started on mandating the vehiclelç q= vehicle communication capability and all future vehicles. that's rather slow going.naqp as >3qwell. i think a lot of folks are interested in those being done more quickly.jm)v$[iq;x

>> do youutañ want to say that?,^ñ the private effort to come up with deployment guidelines. i think the biggest reason and it is written into theqd)[çi1[z2 that we are so early in iot that we can't yet >7ñdefine it. if we come up with too strict a structure around itcfd th6 ÷ñ innovation of it. potentially the security of it, too. that's why this idea of33ñ trying to drive the awareness of it. in general we need to lookqew at existing regulators and p sure they get whate !?u they are doing in the cyberrjdvzrealm.

make sure]45ñ we are not limiting deploymenta technologies? rather advancing it.k -oñ$ (ñ rather we are going to look on touds. the outside.oml >> thank you. nick farmer, private citizen. there seems to be morem@- emphasis maybe next year the federal; government will start to invest more in infrastructure. do you think it's possible that they could berfm convincedh ykyñ to devote a good bitn infrastructure spending on iot related things which in my judgment would be much more efficient both from a capitall4kykn) deployment, energy: and environmental impact than building more roads, more.iqñ airports, more harbors, more railroads. just use the ones we have more efficiently.z

could you comment on that?éyh >>7asjitájjt@n where i operate in the technology space. it may not even be an either-or but rather ifop)e going to invest in new+avy rzñinfrastructure. the new infrastructure should look at how it can use iot.}ç for smartkbj"1ç sustainable that can be a longer lifestyle.l m@c/ñ the!ziby$ @r(t&háhp &hc%

at. those types of things.7eo$zcc send me an inspector type of thing. i think we'll have az spectrum. iot into eí; jt infrastructure in order to understand it better and deploying iot into new infrastructure to understand[m=? main it tan it as we go forward. >> an easy way to accelerate that is for congress to think about building it into legislation or funding.pç for infrastructure. trying totñç think how you would jump start the process would be infrastructure spending.qéfin i don't know if that will happen. wouldn't take any bets. we had a question in the middle. go ahead.uoañ;ñ÷ yeah? can we get you a microphone? >> i know that theñ-axx technology of the"1lcu world isc

that they are international stansfmti see more innovation over seas than@am here. what do you see as far as what you have been able to leverage internationally as far as internationalux kstandards, helping r'novations. >> i don't have a direct answer. i would say one of the findings that i department discuss in the report is that iot is a global b phenomenon. we cannot!fjwñ have u.s. specific whether standards regulations, et cetera that are going to make any devices we have in the u.s. not function with the rest of the world.6 b weáhlçs sñ need to think about this as a global. that's one of the findings under the governance structure.nbiv÷8sr "&j4 >> with toyota being a global

company we don't want to modify a car ]enu sale in the u.s. different than al(jx car we would sell in japan. international sv2qo%ñds in this space are paramount. >> so the s stands for standards. we believe that the use of open/ k÷ consensus space,z international st!fbds are essential andvu( innovation and globald1ñ competitiveness in open markets. i would concur with that. at all? i'm not letting you off the hook. it might be data localzation. >> sounds like a chorus of yes this is a great thing. >> i would say the internet standards have been a reallyt$i goodryjwd&y example of how quicken sends us code. the way to approach standards often is through proof of éxncepts implementation as opposed to

driven structure. we have seen over the years that that's the case. now that's[w: people were brought down the standards that they will provide implementation. many people have business models to allow them to give away r:r@ implementations. you can see quicklyo%sz developing and useful new technologies that come;9 about through the agreement essentially to not only write down protocols and data specs but code that others can reuse. i'm optimistic. very international. keep our stacks identical everywhere.7fm we used the same you know standards for everything from things like multi factorc9 authentication íñstandards, j>9úf6238. we use these thini global in nature. that's a big part of the success of the developinge&

>> something you said38 people. >> my name is eileen from consumer reports.a3& this might be a little bit out of the scope. i'mu-ñ wondering if particularly in some of the companies or in your??÷dxl!lz report, if the sensors include mikes or web]éf cams or data to/a date for the national security stuff we see going on there. most of the commercial targets have been telecom companies or social networks googles and facebooks. as you start developing this havñ /7di9talking or on the regulatory side talking about getting subpoenas or government hacu.1a you knoù÷ñ i wanted to ask about consumer%mnket control. lit's keep it to government now. now the internet of things will have all the data the government may want with not just telecom google a1ájjjydhw

>> yeah. this is something that the auto industry we were working on the self-regulatory privacy principles i was talking about earlier. ä "óze)q things we grappled with. where we came out on it as anc dç industry is we have all committed nothe to share information with law enforcement in the absence of a warrant.br]eñr/ y so we tried to be as aggressive as we felto> microphones,fky@ speakers,d q gps is all sensors taking the physicallfb9ñ

world and generating data from it and then potentially from that sensor putting it back into a back end @zycloud. by the way, i just your phone if youîz think about zj it. which is a sensor platform. hrc so what are the securityu÷ requirements we should think about in order to not justtwrññ assure the4zintegrity and the>etr@ authenticity of the' that's being ñp÷generated. but to work on the confidentiality. what are the requirements and what are the only the standards needed in order tovhnñ ensure that confidentiality. an encryption that can be used in small light1i u% j devices. cpu through the@# communications stack to the securitytp back end clouds and analytics as well.&ñí?ntñ+ñ2ñme s9.wp5@÷v k3]@

addressing the fact that we have such wonderful. can we look at standards or mechanisms and processes thwfu allow us to continue to operate. i envision a stage where my toyota won't go in the tunnel because it doesn't know.bxanña@bx&/vlh1;y for the foreseeable future we are going to adopt an airplane

model. by'& airplanes and1. e are probably all aware with, maybel8fn not that those things are generally taking off, flying and landing by themselves.d pilot it is in the cockpit just if case, right? for us for the foreseeable future we envision that kind of model in the vehicle. there will always be anágc operator s

there will be growingqnñ pains. pr÷ ;f]m"uátáj$rp(pen overnight. to address those growingav we are going with the airplane pilot mode for a while. >> you know, jeff talked about this is a and o.t. systems. something that o.t.@!yk generally do better is >]-cño.t. systems look at users as part of the systemhcr design whereas i.t., we m getting rid of users.l when you look at havingoúm be sent back to ch!l gq! r(t&háhp &hc% physical environment."át ! cyp4vññ@fpz#bgufm

iñ security?]/s if yes what level of security. and 4$¢f how do we put it in. we need to start with the should we connect it.xñ i aq3ef spring.

cardboard boxes.5afém]4 #cm3f

do?7haí or this. -w+! >> thank you.ehj thgw)d hardware andpj™=]i liability issues and alsos education. example, car-!b and i(bbñs have a 2k3wducdh car x9ip r(t&háhp &hc% good car. i would saydk"oç it's innovation thatf. excites and also puzzles. there so many= complexities i figured out how to use voice recognition and it was not coming up with the right stuff. you also have the problem with drivers.o:[ht distracted drivers andccioñ

how do we educate9vm÷:,-iheujuáhp'd the mechanics who are fixing them and how do we keep drivers engaged so if the machine runs into a situation where it can prevent the accident,1 still have a hopefully avoid ord;d:$reu2h$ñ rz minimize an accident. >> i don't think there is an option out there and they are not spending a lotg trying to get those answers correct. therejw challenges with how vehicles are communicating information to drivers. youíy2vñ=8 don't want to do that in a way that is distracting. there issues about the handoff between the& vehiclekr encounters something.n[z these are not easye-+x answers to come up with.< ultimately with the driver distraction thing, a lot of this technology will help counter

distraction. for example, i a lexus with all the bells and whistles and all the advanced collisir' on it. saves me. i try n hy driver but kids are distracting when they are in the back seat. that car saved me multiple times )]lz i deal with kids in the back seat and i take my off off the road and i am end somebody. we think of this in some ways[e8ñ a a way to help addresscvó'%y distractiokz.$ju distraction. that's one element. >> want to give us your license plate 66÷number?:éqfw >> i'm okay system and i won't crash into you. >> a lot of them we lived through /o before.

this one reminds & want to be car-send rick in the early 90saíf busyáwv2op@@ñ cockpit for military aircraft. you had too many screens and too many numbers and howm simplify8[#ñ it like they are supposed to do and not oqnñmanage. i will take on.wáse. >> we have more?ä >> a quick $=lñinterjection. my daughter lives in new york and6d an app that uses the video camera to show you the sidewalkt'q ahead of you. as youo: walk down the street,s couldn't believe it. xc is seefs that that app exists and is b >> a question there in termsjb-e of the slow adoption, that's going to be a concern.8j we are currently developing this

program and will be working with a serious challenge. the slow adoption of technology, you talk about the0é oñé0vvesh rate of the vehicles and that is |bjú+ing to be a longer period. you talk about the policy issues relative z÷ to citizens and their concern about privacy. that+++ potential? you were mentioning, what are the needed skill sets like jobs and education pipes that need to be set up for this?

i'm looking for a psychology data scientist. there is not a lot of them out there. what is the futurure iot repairman look like? there is potential for a large infrastructure shift to occur. at a much larger level than just deploying a set of sensors and looking at the data. >> i have to say something since you brought up the security cloud. like any system you can misuse the cloud platform. they will tell you they can have more in a large scale utility than they can ever build for themselves. they can have 100 or 1,000 servers in a datacenter somewhere. we are operating an internet

scale. we reach out all the time and say there is something you need to know about. when we hire a security expert the amount of server that is the skills impact is way larger factor of scale than when you hired that same expert. the use of the systems and it's not an industry plug that is a way of doing computing. we believe that the security experts in the domain or within the application or application or agency can they can write automated tools because everything the infrastructure is programmable. there is no more people racking and stacking and there is not that weekend where someone cross connects with the jack between the developer work station and the server to see. that can't happen. in general i think we are going

to get more secure systems when we use large scale platforms. you can misconfigure and misuse them. there is responsibility to not configure them improperly. the actual structure itself, this is a big win. the an lytics that you get from all that data. we are seeing patterns and we are doing an lytics on large scale patterns that are not to the users. that is the safety of the entire community. i think cloud is not the security. it will be a win. >> maybe we will start with the questions in the back and move up front. >> hillary i think you described it as a concern about people worried about their data being shared or collected and misused or abused. with the things being ideal from

your car to a bridge you drive over to the street corner how do you address the concerns from a perspective or a public image perspective from all this data being collected or shared or used to return to the consumer and the citizen? with a lot of these devices they won't have the touch screen like a smart phone and you can't collect or deliver notification about their data being shared. how do you work around that? >> that's a good question for all of the family. >> i don't know that i have a unique answer on it. it's interesting. one of the things i have been grappling with and it's a distinction -- i don't know if it's useful, but it's a distinction. to me this element of choice and consent and that sort of thing, it may have more relevance in those things of which you have

no choice. or those things where you have a choice versus the things where you do not have a choice. even then is it anonymous or aggregated or identifiable data? for us we are grappling with it as an auto system, is it data that is identifiable for the most part and not for the most part, but entirely. if it is aggregated it was not part of the calculus. there pieces of vehicle data collection that are going to be optional to you. if you want to be a probe on the wave system, you can choose chb. if i want to wear a fit bit i choose to versus some where there is not a choice. i don't know if it's useful, but it has been something i have been focusing in on. >> thinking back, a lot of it

starts with the education that we were talking about earlier. i bought a fit bit and i didn't think about all the places that that data would be. i don't really care who has the data and how many steps i take but we quantified self last year that looked at the data and all the different places and the different vulnerabilities that we go through. when you start getting into other health characteristics and who knows how they will be used. until you have people being aware of it and raising concerns. it will be hard to get traction to come up with solutions because there is not going to be that outside force driving it. people need to understand even what they are giving off with their phone. who has read an entire thing when they clicked