great.oneywell is doing the story is terrific. looking forward to doing this retrospective on your life. thinking it's all pretty nice. in the meantime, i notice on the screen behind me is this analyst talking about whether or not i should continue morgan director. the two guys and said, am i the only ones to irony of all of this. the faces turned red. they said, look, we're not fair.g it's i did the interview, everything worked out fine. out econd kind of learning of all of this is this is where really beneficial to have spent that much time in washington. of the vote. 59% i ended up learning that's a mandate. so i'm in -- i'm in great shape. as long as you're above 50, it's

a man date. you're good. can't say it bothered me all that much. > does it hurt you being able to operate on the board of jp? >> does what? >> the vote? >> i won. >> you did. shareholders -- >> i was on the high side of the three of us. signaled their oncern about the risk management. >> how are people voting, what voting? why? ceo thing he whole that was a part of it. a protest vote here and there. passed, ell knows, i i'm still there. and we're going to continue and to do well.is going >> talk about honeywell for a more minutes. renaissance of this company. in trouble when you took it over

a little more than a month ago. you find that needed to be changed and what are the abiding principles for keeping that innovation going over that many years. >> anybody familiar with the bad as it istory, as looked from the outside, it was worse inside. almost everything you touched, $8 billion worth of four ffs in the previous years, three cultures, three together that ht hadn't been integrated. an empty pipeline of new products. go.idn't have a lot to globally, 41% of the sales came from outside of the u.s. so there was a lot of stuff that -- that we had to add dress. issues too.acy three-pronged approach. a three legged school. i refer to it as our business no model. first we had to address the

portfolio. we ran the company based on a of factors. good industries and allow you to growth share. we dead $10 billion of acquisitions and $6 billion of dispositions. total of 125, 130 million ransactions and changed the growth profile of the company as a result. the second is the diversity of there's no onere big thing you can ever point to in the company and say this is honeywell ng to make over the next five or ten years? but by the same token, nothing awry and creates the problem for us. >> the virtues of being a conglomerate. >> i think the sexy word now is multi-industrial. conglomerate just seems kind of old. the first was the portfolio.

focus on was the internal processes. it's important to make sure the machinery works. have 130,000 people, a big part of this is just making sure that you give all of the need everytools they day, better processes, better empowermenting, the they need without losing control. just give them a better process o work so that the machinery works. because at the end of the day, whole int out to my are , is that all of us bureaucrats. we all get our job done through somebody else. withneed the tools to work that. we spend a lot of time focused on culture early on and deciding of company did we want? we had three different company cultures in there. something internally that was referred to as the red wars that you had red legacy honeywell, the legacy allied and the pitway crew that didn't listen

one.ther we had to decide, what culture do we want? and how can we go forward as a company. can remember we were trying to talk about this on our taff, one of the guys were saying why are we fooling around with this when we have all of issues you can keel with. my comment is i can make all of strategic decisions that you want. if nobody does any of them, it's not going to matter. we have to agree how to work together and how to get it done. good job of being able to get things done. a couple of phrases i use a lot. the s the trick is in doing. also referred to -- there's a big difference between the compliance with words and compliance with intent. if you look at manuals, if they go company to company, it's all the same. know the same stuff, talk to the same people, read the same books.

we all know this stuff. why is there such a variability between companies. it's because how you actually do it? how you make sure it happens makes a big difference. cultures have gone pretty well that way. iversification doesn't create distractions? the multi-organizational it was hard to kind of keep track of that many industries. diversification trumps that concern? you depends on how diversify. when it comes to that, you know, ld word, conglomerate, there are all kinds of conglomerates out there. it's not just in the industrial sector. conglomerates in media and financial institutions, everywhere. there's different kinds of businesses within say a particular kind of industry you're going to run into that. take a look at what we've

business models on how we run the businesses, they aren't all that different. go to the controls billion, it's about $17 in total. some people look at it and say, wow, that's a lot of different product and a lot of different places. they'd be right. but if you said, okay, how many are l business models there, there's only three. take your do you product to market with what we call our distribution businesses. he second one is the one that sells the refineries and pumps and paper mills, kind of big projects. nd the third one is multi-brand, multichannel distribution of technology-type projects that business model is the same. it's not like you're going from discussion to an radio onyx discussion. it's the same as it is

different. >> let's ask one more question and then we'll go to questions from the audience. a lot of ny is doing r&d, a lot of innovation, energy and missions controls. got a piece of the action f the shale gas revolution that's under way or developing microdrones. wondering if you can reflect in the the u.s. is innovation curve at the moment. great deal of concern we're not graduating enough engineers. so many more graduating in the indias of the world. are we short in innovation in the u.s.? we short at the moment on confidence? >> wouldn't say we're short of innovation. you look at the number of ideas we're able to generate, we have the best system in the generating those ideas, enabling the possibility of nose ideas to come to fruition. still have the best system.

we don't give enough credence to the fact that others are moving isour direction and that gap going to continue to shorten. point to india, for example, the tendency in india costkay, you can get lower engineering, but it's lower quality. it's not as good as what we do. say along the software work we do, we do a lot, by the of the bestoes some software work that we find in the world, including the u.s. and the capability that our guys unbelievable. and you can just take in a way of tandards as measuring software quality in erms of the capability is the computer maturity model index, he mmi, there's a ratings from 1 to 5, five being the best in the world.

20 firms that have mmi standard anywhere. our operation in india has had it for 20 years now. people to 7,000 people, mostly doing software. a ause even when you look at company like honeywell, you say, okay, all of your products like avionics, jet gins, controls, materials, turbochargers. that's all stuff that ships in a box. but we have about 22,000 engineers. more than half are doing software. half.han everything we ship in a box, software is the predominant deal with.that we if you look at a place like india, what they're able to do, same is starting to do the thing. we need to recognize that the rest of the world is starting to catch up. model eed a different than we did 20 years ago. kind of continue on that point,

years ago, 1 20 billion people were participating in the global u.s., a couple of western europeans, japan and a few others. added china, india, russia, and other countries that are and recognizing a private sector, a robust private sector in need of prosperity. but we still act like we did 20 years ago. recognizing that world dp shift is coming, it's already occurring. we need to act differently than we have in the past. things i'd say as an american concerns me for my own country. like we get itel yet. it will be one of these that we don't recognize it until it's too late. we're going to argue about our entitlements and taxes instead math and science education in all levels of our schools, infrastructure. business.d one for tort reform needs to get done. doing a better job with free

trade. a lot of stuff -- energy policy. there's a lot of stuff that we need to be doing that we're just arguing and the rest of the world is moving. questions?note, yes, please. wait for the microphone. if you could -- if you could are?us who you >> good morning. adele golfo, pfizer. i run our latin american business. and a lot of great comments, thank you, in a lot of different areas. growth prospects and talk a lot about china for grow, india and innovation. i'm curious about latin america, and specifically, something you about china's ability to evolve. i'm interested in latin

america, brazil, mexico. growth prospects. -- ability >> so something that you have to deal with. it never gets to a point where vote andver 50% of the people start thinking, the reason i'm not doing well is because those guys have everything. now, not to say that flavor isn't there. but it's not there to an overwhelming extent. latin american companies still show this ability, okay, we're opening up. way.e'll go the other there's a line that we liked from churchill that said with

apitalism, you have unequal sharing of the prosperity. with socialism, you have equal of the misery. with the populous tendency, tendency o much of a to go that way. that makes me fearful. in brazil, we participate there. a great market to be in until a little recently. it even withto see the bus fare stuff that's been going on down there. gee, it's starting to have that same tendency. popularity that takes over, causes me ent, still concern. >> mexico? >> i view mexico differently. they still have the same kind of concern. and being thisnefit from we e to the u.s. where generally are able to not let that take over.

bullish.'m a little starting to get nervous about it there say ten years ago, what seeing, i'm encouraged by the things they're doing with echnical education, the stuff they're talking about with pemex, the reforms they're the ng about generally on education system. so i'm optimism on mexico. >> hi, bloomberg business news. forgive me. fresh off of the red eye. a sense of your view whether you would be interested in if you've done nything with this joint venture, this direct investment fund that they have. because it's the first big deal i've seen. i'm curious about how business is viewing that market right now.

>> i don't know enough about what jeff is doing to talk much about that. russia, comes to generally. i want to believe. -- good t's guoed if for the world if they kind of come into the capitalist democratic fold. that's a good phenomenon for the world. to concern you still have have is that the rule of law is not completely established. there's too many -- there's just still too many concerns when it really a okay, is this place where you can have trust in the institutions, getting beginning of the discussion today. you have to be able to have trust in your institutions. that they need to evolve to. i think they're fully capable of being able to do that, but it has to happen. and you just have to be able to trust that if there's a dispute it's going to that get resolved peacefully, independently. you may disagree with the decision, but at the end of the

trust that there was nothing corrupted, impacted it in any way. and i wouldn't say they're completely there yet. in the meantime, we still view place to do good business. we're going continue to do business there ourselves. ut i'm going to be careful how does i think about a dispute get handled with anything i have to do. >> yes. please? you, "wall street journal," thank you, david. i'm heidi messer, chairman of eye, a technology company focused on providing business intelligence as a service. i'm curious your thoughts about the immigration reform debate hat's happening in wa and the likelihood of the bill getting through? >> i -- i was just down there a days ago. and would say it sounds to ising that they're going do something. it will continue like everything down there, with fits and starts

people have been down there a long time saying that every deal has to fall apart three actually get hey something done. end of the day, it feels like something is going to happen here. gives us o think this momentum when it comes to getting other things done like the debt. let's carry gee, this forward momentum. when it comes to immigration, i ceos are probably in favor of it. too. but not just because it's good for a company or as a ceo, but a reasons. one you do want the high intellect people coming here. you just want that. i don't see why you'd ever want to turn that away. prospect that somebody says they have a great idea. they've got a -- they're brilliant. make $1 k they can billion here. let them at it. because if they make $1 billion, 20 out of will get it. it's stuff that we ought to be

encouraging. favor of the n kind of just regular old immigration. the people who have the guts to the country here to to try to make a better life for themselves. i've likened it to, okay, 7:00, t to the party at it's good at 7:30. you shut the door to anybody else coming in to the party. i never thought that was quite fair. nd if i look at my own antecedents, they came from uebec from france in 1634 and 100 or so years ago walked border to take jobs in the textile mills in new hampshire. i don't think they registered with anybody on the way in. not too hung up -- >> i was born here. my birth certificate is in good shape. do you have a green card? >> i have a tough time kind of aying, no, we're not going to give you the same opportunity. by the way, at the same time, we

eed population increase if we're going to address the social security, medicare issue i was just talking about, withe people to pay into the ystem and the dynamic they can help to create if they come to the country, people willing to take the chance, that's a good thing for the country. >> yes, please. amy wilkinson, harvard university. focus is on entrepreneurial leadership. my question is to follow up on evolving.ents about how is if the world is evolving a year or the markets going from 1 billion to 4 billion, etc. do to evolve and encourage people inside your company to evolve. spent a lot of time talking about it. of evolution,cept i talk about it every place i can go. the training classes that come, them.l talk to the senior leadership meeting.

the town halls i talk about it. do my own appraisals with my own people. and i generally put all of the toversations in that context be able to say, okay, we're going to have a 60-minute meeting. of it withd a minute ou telling us everything that you did. that's great. or we're going spend the next 59 talking about where you're going. because you have to constantly recognizing rward, the things are changing, things are evolving. any wouldn't say there's like one thing you can do. it just has to be relentless. you have to constantly be about it, making that point, not just at the person the organization level. tendency to be just proud of what they did. which is good, we should have pride in that. because of that, kind of forget, oh, there's more to come. the world is still changing, my changing.s are customers are changing. technology is changing. i need to change that way. so it starts with me. to recognize that. and keep thinking that way.

ne of the things i wondered about myself in this job. every two or three years, you have a national stimulus that differently because you got a different job. you're the change agent. you come in and have to do that. go, i'm at it and you going to be in a job for ten years, how do i make sure i keep doing that. one of the things i wondered about myself whether i could do it or not. worked out. happy to report it worked out. i can do it. i wonder about myself. the things that you constantly have to be aware of. >> do you have personal checks? you have somebody that you go to to make sure you're giving that you're age delivering internally to your managers? >> about how i need to evolve? it -- >> right. >> crossing over that ten years, as you attempt to do that? well, i'd say -- first of all, it's part of who i am,

which kind of helps. tend to be curious. i like talking to everybody. finding out what are you doing, what are you seeing? what's happening. i travel a lot. i've been over 100 countries in this job coming back two weeks in asia. to talk tohere a lot all kinds of different people. my board is helpful and we have who y good board of people have run big stuff, which is i hink important for board composition. so you get a lot of different looks at things and that helms. that i no one person look to to -- >> question? yes, please? bob, be kind. a.j., first of all, congratulations of being the ceo year, representing the business community as well as you do professionally as you do, out here. lot to us my question is, you know, we've

been given a second chance in thanks to y nnovation, the disruptive and advanced organization in oil and gas fracking and so forth. he second chance to get energy independence. could be one of the best job creators. that defense spending the, the chain, etc., etc. hy are we not moving more quickly than we are? why are we waiting 1700 days to decision and fight for it. from your perspective, both the the relationship, we moving quicker on one of the best initiatives to help our country. i'd like e of things to comment on that. first of all, thank you for the a nt you're making on being spokesperson for business. because i do think that since the role of business in merican society has been one of -- viewed as one that needs to be regulated more. an while -- okay, i'm not

anti-regulation guy. i understand there's minimum need to be at reached, at the end of the day, there's an enabling function also. i said many times it american success story, you can look at t that most of that came from business. it's government enabling business and regular latering it in the right way. where the a look at productivity came from that led to prosperity and standard of came from business and government enabling business to be successful. way, n an anti-regulation but by making sure that the fiscal house was in order, the kids were educated. people like me had an opportunity at a young age to be something thatto we had good infrastructure. i mean all of those things are enablers that government needs to do. one of the things that they ould do to enable further is exactly what you said, energy policy. and we had a lot of

when we ions about how look at the debt problem, right now we look at it and say two solutions. you raise taxes or you cut spending. third possibility that we keep introducing. it won't solve the whole problem. but it serbly helms. that is to really unleash the energy sector. looking at the benefits to that, it's not just of havingmers instead $4 gas could have $2 gas, which for ke getting a tax cut them. and takes out some of the uncertainty. through 20/20, ihs does studies it adds 1 million jobs to the energy sector. 2035, adds something like $1 trillion of government local, state, and federal level. be his is already going to big. it could be bigger if we had smarter, faster permitting.

it doesn't mean let stuff fly the gh, it means get decisions done quickly so the companies know to move on or not. bigger impact than that. i would go back -- they have to get through immigration. have to get through debt right now with energy. leave it alone, that would be -- that would be a good thing, you know? touch it too much. and it's just part of the frustration. and as a ernment people, we've forgotten the significance of business of the success story. and we've forgotten how important it is for government enable business to be successful. > is there a concern in your mind that natural gas, this and the nary discovery private sector that the government did a lot of the fracking forrch on the private sector finances and found a way to make it

profitable. be kind ofs going to a bridge to renewables that's extension ofust an our consumption of carbon with concerns?ange >> first of all, to your first inventingut government it, a lot of private sector guys involved wouldn't say that's the case. never researched it. i don't know where the truth is there. evolve of how did that to we'll say a carbon-free give us an eye for 20 years or so, i don't really ther side knowles. and too often, i see in the perfect is the enemy of the good. right now, we've got something good at a time when we're in trouble and need something good. need to grab what we have, continue evolving. and we will.

just the pressure is not going up on that. but we have to grab what we have and kind of work our way through have right that we now. >> thanks very much for this. know that you've been an inquisitive mode over the last ten years, i couldn't help but we're broadcasting this product placement. i'm just wondering, is there any company? in this >> well, you might have noticed, up in new england, they're based are me of the words that used in the course of the hour. if you're an new englander, you dunkin' donuts coffee. >> very much for the romp across topic. >> thank you. > on tomorrow's "washington ournal," reuter's economic corresponde correspondent, pedro da costa on u.s. economy and unemployment issues. and the resources that go into fires with d nathanael massey.

washington journal begins live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. of the points we make in this book, for the perennial did it make a difference to have a popular election? we came down on the side that yes, it did make a difference. senators began to act like house that's not something that every senator wants the hear. for were up scavenging votes. they had to deal with the people as opposed to, you know, if you legislature. there are 26 members of your state senate, all you need is 14 can easily pay off and they did, indeed, in some pay off 14 senators buying -- paying off their ortgages in a couple of notorious cases to buy -- buy their elections. historian emeritus of the u.s. senate richard baker 8:00 on c-span's

q&a. >> no man needs a strong honest partner, more than the american president he is ed and cocooned as in what harry truman called the great white prison. so that's what i concluded after years and hundreds of interviews, that those residents with -- with brave spouses willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to the big guy. those presidents have all of the advantage. let me give you an example. had pat nixon been able to cut husband's paranoia, watergate might have been pat had long since given up on her husband by the time they reached the white house. they were leading virtually separate lives as -- as you'll of this portrayal saddest of all presidential couples. advice, give my husband pat was quoted as saying, because he doesn't need it. ell, is there a man or woman alive who doesn't need advice from the person who knows him or

her best? >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, kati marton talks about how irst marriages and first ladies shaped american history. monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. american author sydney hittenberg lived in china for 30 years. he joined the communist party worked with many of china's leaders. e was interviewed in an event hosted by the washington state council.lations

who has here's nobody had the personal range of experience that sydney has had of china g the leader in the revolutionary ride, also experiencing the hardships in prison.s in there's no one at the had as tual stance he's an early martianist and a believer in the communist party country has w the evolved in the years sthins. no one has the historical range he has. there before there was a people's republic of china and being in there celebrating th, 64th anniversaries as a republic. nd his engagement in the subject is such that even this morning, i sent sydney a note saying i'm in seattle, we should talk before this gathering. what should we cover. very detailed 19-point note that exceeds in and ety and sophistication what you'll read in any of the newspapers. so it's a real, real pleasure.

we're going to cover this evening is at sydney's discussion and my wish of china,urrent state its politics, the economics, the churl, and as we look forward, that we can expect. but, i'm going to do something do.oped i wouldn't but anybody in the audience who's read his wonderful book, stayed behind" and the national audience too would didn't ask zy if i this question. this book, i hope if you haven't read it, you will. book. great it's inciteful, riveting, dramatic. of chi flabout parts that are different in the 1940s than they are now and parts that same.ery much the part of it is the recording of 16 years in two separate confinementsolitary in chinese prisons. and that's something that most f us or at least i don't think i could take. one time when i was in korea ten

there was i realized nothing around me, a language that i could read. japanese, english, any characters, only something i didn't understand. hours i was 24 going to go crazy. i had no way of bringing in extra information. were in this you kind of circumstance. you learn about life by doing this? that you want to tell us those have not had this. what is the moral you can give s about what you learned yourself in 16 years on your own? > i think two different kinds of things. first is that the things that i originally thought were so important that i couldn't live without, most of really that important at all. thing that i couldn't live without, and now we get to

thing, was ind of something that i think comes heading of neral integrity. unity of what you think -- what you say, what you do. ability to learn to use reason -- to use reason to your mood and emotions, to harness your emotions to get behind positive ideas and keep from dragging you down. you learn this over a long period of time through a number lessons and you gain in strength as you go along. to that's a great thing have. > there's an ongoing theme in

literature and philosophy of people looking back on life and could tell people -- for example, "our town," people looking down from wishing they could tell the still living to enjoy the ordinary pleasures of their day. walk around and see people who have not been through what you've been through, you and say, ake them look, pay attention to this? i've had to learn things about myself -- do you want to give lessons to all of us? >> i wouldn't mind doing that. but i have been teaching. but the fact is that it's not you can insert into somebody else. you can try to create incentives trainnditions for them to themselves and hope they will do it. raising children also. but you can't put it into something else. it's interesting.

i thought a lot, especially prisons in the culture revolution. about it, lot another book by wilder called a ven's my destination about young man who's looming long-term in a brothel but all time he thought it was a charitable home for ladies. >> looking on the bright side, right. okay, when they return to these themes later on, but now i'm go into current events. as you know and as you've discussed, there's a china for whomin the hopes in china itself were quite high. beijing for the last week as we were discussing and lots of talking y students about, yes, they thought that ick p ping and his comrades were going to do the things that ere necessary for china's next step. basically the poles of argument

is whether these leaders will or whether theem system is bigger than any people who are within it. how should we think about that tension? >> well, incidentally, i thought ought to explain that i do actually own a blazer. but i'm not wearing it out of leader ping he new who doesn't like to wear coats. what can we reasonably kbpt for the new and what can we not expect. and in my view, we can expect work very e going to hard and probably succeed in substantial economic reforms. like opening credit from the big state banks to private industry and commerce. after the president, private nterprise in china, which is the fastest growing and the most far, in e sector by

order to get funding to meet cannot get it ou typically from the big banks. you have to go to the bank, which charges 35% interest. so if you can't make that, then going out of y business. the example changed. another thing -- they have determined to amount of ink the economic growth that comes from state investments. kinds of stments all reasons is enormously wasteful. and unproductive.

think they'll continue to move way from exports and serving the economy. 750 million people who are still part of the modern marketplace. they will become so. in the next 11 years, i think it is, they're going to move 700 million people from the villages communities. not all big cities, but many big stills. hey think that's one of the ways out of poverty.

are going se things to be very difficult to do, because the big conglomerates, state-owned monopolies it. usually against because they're doing very well and they don't want anything to change. don't want tainly more competition from either abroad.r but i think they will be able to push it through. think ping is a very energetic an and i think his father was very close friend. father is a very fine man. he fought for the favorable sold on the idea that ping was involved in the process. all ofso the only one of the years who openly spoke out

the suppression in -- 1989. ten men square in always efore he was instructive. i have seen enough of the father to give somehe son reason to hope. jim has pointed out, that yle -- the new style he brought into office with him managed to -- to egin to overcome the terrible is overl chemistry that chinese people, especial lip young people, for quite a long time. beginning to be a spirit. it's beginning to be a soul. on the -- on the debit side of the ledger, what we there is a marked

in ession of nationalism his -- in his policies and his remarks. the emphasis on the chinese resurgence of the great chinese nation, and also in the pinion manifest in tude towards sovereignty the south china sea as opposed and me of saving countries dispute withth the japan. a it's something that i find used alarming because he to unify al spirit people, makes sense. how far will he go? how well can he manage it is a mind. on in my >> i'd like to come back to the nationalism issues in a moment.

extra value e the of the father of the new president of china is a close friend. something you don't get -- don't get normal conversation. nd i was in beijing last week where people were saying that the restaurants were less crowded. the questions of corruption, of a rig game.of of the widening gap in the chinese system had made their -- there's a camp that says this an't be -- this can't be sustained. unless he can really transform people's trust in the system, another going to be kind of crisis for the chinese governance. how do you view that kind of analysis? >> well, i think that it can be

actually., he has made some moves already number of corrupt officials, some of them very place.n ome of them above the ministerial level, which is encouraging to people. eliminate're going to corruption from official china today. not going to happen. to dy here is old enough remember. we used to have a lot of little audrey jokes. of the little audrey stories is little audrey took her toothpaste and squeezed all of the toothpaste out of this tube. o her mother came in and put little audrey over her knee and spankled her. she was spanking her, little audrey laughed and laughed mother she knew her would never get that toothpaste back in the tube again. it's part of shall the system.

the new leading team has pparently been selected, all ween of them, partly because all have a record for the corruption. capable oft the most ministers vice prime n charge of the fight against corruption, probably as could happen. i don't mean to change the picture. it will show the public these guys are trying, i think. they mean what they say. o to judge how they're realizing those ambitions, four or five years from now in the another rm, there's what would be benchmarked to say, oh, yeah, e'sf able to make good on the reforms versus him saying he's

not been able to make progress. toi don't expect a whole lot happen in the way of political reform. the political system is not change, iubstantially don't think. they're thinking it's caused improvement in people's lives, change it?we there are things that are wrong changed. be i think if they are able to reforms, the economic if they are able to make to give it you know, a very, very bad odor, it has to and to -- e secret, some moves against powerful people who are corrupt, they will have moved a great way forward.

i think the economy is going to continue to grow. >> the first time he talked five story years ago for the that i was doing in the atlantic about the puzzle that remains in my mind still. usually clarifying them. but it's still a puzzle. he puzzle is why in china and the chinese government does stuch a bad job of projecting realities to the world. nd this is connected to political reform. more people went there, saw the variety of the place, the life things eople, all the that are excited and thing day-by-day, it's horrible and appealing and things like that. but of course the government makes it hard to keep visas. keep people out. they have a propaganda.

opened up a protest zone and then the security people arrested people. so the question i was asking you is why is this balance so skewed is the dick nk of cheneys of china? would me that america look bad to the world if dick foreign re sort of our presence in my own opinion. and his counterparts, i think in had the upperhave hand in terms of not letting the country relax. relaxing at china some point? is a very, very important point. because for so long, not so much years, but for boogie ng time, the big told about ple were is the threat of peaceful out in n being carried china. i remember asking for that in

beijing. where you're concerned of evolving out of peacefully, you know? ecause in my view, and i said this, it really -- if you're talking about elements of to me we it seems have more here in the united tates today than they have in china. this has been dropped as far as i could see. is a country that's been locked off basically from the world for millennia, not ust for centuries, for millennia. is deeply l concept embedded in lots of people that not the foreigners that are barbarian, but that we chinese are the normal and really normal.

okay.n, they're they're okay. we're what's normal. therefore the idea of letting the not quite normal people get the chinese affairs and to interlock too much and be closely is a quite people. idea to lots of i hope we'll see fewer and fewer cheneys in china. the day, i d for would abolish the publicity security nd also the ministry and all that stuff. will get lly, it better and better in time. shot in ends would get the eye and stuff like that. >> to bring it to a specific harping on for a long time, it seems to me

of the internet is an illustration and deceptively more important phenomenon than we seem, because if china as first rate world universities and first rate innovative corporations, the people who can build those to go whereot going they can't use the internet. here must be people in the government sophisticated to realize that, right? how will it be resolve? >> that's the problem. are people sophisticated enough to realize. there are people who are definitely against this and try work against it. against great powerful group like the propaganda people and the security people who are very it and who think that recently the statement has been made that we have to tighten up and ntrol of the internet guidance of opinion.

o there is this between people who understand they want to open up. i think historically the more liberal open uppers have been winning. i'll give you an example. when the pc first came out, it soviet union.the it was banned in other countries. in china, many are experiencing in in china, except the highly controlled high-tech people. and the educated people and the political people. wanted and china they won. >> you said you don't think mobi party democracy is right now. you have any legitimate reason for being fearful of

on the lled expression internet. if you were in charge, would you say open up or not. so.i don't think you can prove it by the fact that there are thousands and of chat rooms in china. some of them are really extreme. left, some reme extreme right. extremely against the government. happens. ecause of that, not only disturbing because of bad policy people and every time we allow the , if you press which is partly owned to debates on all political and theoretical uestions, it would release tension. it would not build up tensions. for a timeed in 1978 before china shut it down and it

trouble at e any all. >> one more question about the internal intentions. number of e documented uprisings is a huge number. across china.y it impressed me the one i have appealles to salvation against local oppressors do you iew these as a sort of safety valve or a sign of discontent? >> it's both, i think. and the sign of discontent a safety problem. ctually, the vice minister of agriculture several years ago said this to the president. we are against disturbances, disruptions, and life and production. but there is a good side to them our hat is they bring attention to bad things that are going on that we otherwise wouldn't know about it. deal with it. so that's the rather sun shiny statement. you can't deal with it all. but i think it's true.

i it's very significant, believe, that not one of these 100,000 public march and petitions and campaigns, not one of them has against the central authority. either the party or the government. you get them and his people down deal with it. and so you can see it's partly partly as an ut element of stability, really, in -- that has serious lacks in political. >> in your observation over time, the central government is ecoming more tolerant or more draconian in dealing with these? > they're becoming more moderate -- they fundamentally change their way of managing them.

half a dozen years ago, they there's a strike or demonstration. they would send in the contact sup -- suppress it. now they don't. they keep hands off in terms of but send people in to negotiate and facilitate. three years ago, the very truck drivers struck in hanghai that blocked the main arteries of transportation and caused great losses, they didn't jump on anybody.

in 25 years of going back and to japan, i've been struck with how the hatred is going up up and up. origin and the consequences? difference s much between chinese and japanese mindsets, if you like, as there between japanese and american. on the surface, it may appear quite similar, but actually it's very, very different. you go to china and your

talking whoever, the part, once you become acquainted is to cut the key them around, you think of nicknames for you and so on. live in japan for 30 years. >> not going happen. >> george w. bush they always tell me too. you.hank >> yeah. i won't call you dick cheney. >> on this point -- malintentions. the mounting tensions -- just anti-japanese sentiment. it comes mainly now never felt it t and had few of any viewings of the japanese. stories of ccurs in

elders and their family, not too many of those elders are still around, though. have don conclude this is manufactured. get from the technical schools and from if you watch e -- chinese tv, there's a war ant -- there are tories of heroic chinese fighting, and you know, some of them are really bad. is manufactured and kept up. saying is part of the to t it makes sense cultivate a national spirit. dangerous.very in china, when the anti-japanese campaigns for the last decade, et's say, start typically they

are supported by the government, local t by the government. to a certain amount of vie menace and power, dampen rnment begins to it and even to crack down five or six years ago in the last big outbreak, it ended when they arrested, i think, 27 of the shanghai.le in about that. it's a double edged sword. can dangerous because it have a -- an evil effect on foreign policy and it's be a ous because it can vehicle through which disgruntled people can attack the chinese government too. you're soft on japan. i have a sort of test next or you travel to japan china. as youtioned how as soon know somebody, you're kidding

around and joking. this is in 1986. from new york and tokyo. the baggage handlers are bowing etc.e plane, as soon as we got to the irport, the guys were throwing bags and playing tag. the same thing -- the baggage play games with each other. have a psychological question for you that's related to this. hat in many ways, experiences in china sort of confirm your about your own great personal hardship there. dwelling on.h when when he talk to veterans people who went through starvation, there's a very practical minded, why dwell on this, let's move ahead. the other hand, you come across those people, maybe the what wasle dwelling on done to their grandparents 100 japanese.by the the humiliation of 100 years,

etc. ow would you do the great practical dismissal of history and great dwelling on historical sleights. the contra dicks abound in china. this ou talk about contradiction? i think chinese philosophy stressed self-cultivation of individuals. always positive and negative forces battling inside you and to use your earn own strong points to deal with points.n weak the eventual engine of progress. so this is a force. o in dealing with what happens to me, lots of people draw on that tradition. on the other hand, hands off my country. that's a different story. he great slow slogan in the

resistance of the japanese invasion, the great slogan was and back my mountains rivers, you know? my hometown. but give me back my mountains villages, get out of my country. there's a very powerful feeling. practical terms, is the between japan sh and china, is it dangerous or not? it's extremely bad. i don't think it's a danger of war. ecause neither japan nor china has any intention of going to war with anybody nowadays. ow they're not the kind of people who can be catapulted into a stradded ji that they incident. so if there are incidents, there are miscalculations, i think they'll get over them. get by them.

effect, the toxic think its is that -- i has turned a great portion of he japanese public against china, which is absolutely unnecessary. i think most japanese had quite a friendly feeling towards china. now they feel hey, what's going on. sending these and locking us on to your radar. and in china, it stimulates this nationalism. why anybody to see thinks in china -- why anybody would be a good move. i think it's part of a general grown over the we're a years that

great power and we have to show we're a great power. we have to stand up and be noticed. united vis-a-vis the states. >> you anticipate my next question. >> no, not at all. they are very clear that cornerstones of the foreign policy is to avoid confrontation with the united any cost. ost at >> let me ask you -- we talked about a relationship between japan that are becoming needlessly sour and hostile. of ll offer to you the sort wilderish pollyannaish united ation that the states and china in the last 40 years made things much better smoother than they might well have been. their relations have been well managed on both sides? absolutely. >> what do you attribute that to in the two-countries' perspective leaderships.

>> i think in terms of the national interest, this is the makes sense.t anything else not only doesn't make sense, but kit be really dangerous and studepid. so what politicians say in congress and so on is one thing. campaigning for president, even. what they do when they're in charge of national policy in the i think, is quite different. there can be lurches in one direction or another, but by large, it's a steady policy of finding common ground and expanding relationships in -- in the -- in the u.s.-china relationship. were living in beijing in the financial '09.apse in '08 and a lot of tone in chinese leaders not simply pride in their own not being able to

rebound more quickly than others have the mply to national shenanigans that led this.rld into but they time had passed. that's not the tone now. agree that wasn't the tone for now. kind of circleat of critics that were saying that and felt quite happy about it. decide -- some of them decided they weren't sure itthey should be happy about or not. point, $3 one trillion of our dollars, they be good for would the dollar. come on. >> there was a narrative you heard hat the time that britain, france, portugal, spain, they ad their moments and it's all relatively small countries and the xtended to them like united states. what do you think the chinese strategic long-term view or for the u.s. s

are? or is? >> well, i think first of all, a stable international environment. for them to reach economic goals. you can't think about that ithout thinking about u.s.-china relations. and i think that's probably the main thing. particularly this new leading team. over and emphasizing over that we should build a new of relationship between powers. >> major powers. >> yeah. e should show the world that the emergence of a new major power doesn't necessarily mean chaos and war and so on. i think they're very interested in this, in trying to build it. politicians erican that go over there usually get a eally great welcome, even the ones that aren't so friendly.

>> so, as i mentioned, i spent ast week in beijing with a number of senior security officials, including wearing the pla. uniforms of the it was really interesting. one of the themes that came of ugh was the theme strategicic mistrust. and the argument that was given as for example in iraq and afghanistan, a large number of american troops have been killed friendly ly by uk fire. nobody except real anglo folks purpose, but any incident between the u.s. and china, the embassy bombing in 20 years ago is taken as having been purposeful or no explanation is given accepted. what do you think are the main grounds for chinese strategic of us and for american strategic mistrust of china? in the case of -- they trust of us

went through a period of 27 thes, i'd say, from 1949 to end of the cultural revolution in which we were the devil. we were the great satan. with the hing wrong world was attributable to american policy. up with that idea. 1960, we starting in shared that honor with the russian. a great satan. o the relationship fundamentally changed. but it takes time, i think, for that kind of building and wear off.o i feel very strongly that at no time in the worst the korean war and fter, at no time did you find ordinary chinese personally

hostile to americans. an incident an american writer and he went with i went with him to tee tiennamen square where millions students in and around the square, they were -- abdication me against u.s. imperialism, as usual. he wanted to go out and rally.e so i started guided them through shouting slogans. and then they stopped us and me who this was. he's an american journalist. he immediately fell back on both opened the car to let them go out there and film. and think americans

canadian anadians all this time have been favored in china. ou go to any chinese village and some little guy practicing his chinese -- his english will come up and say, where are you from? you say america, you get a big away.right experiences , our over the decade has been that, no bad experiences based on american, but my own personal traits, not my nationality. does the u.s. legitimately mistrust about china right now. >> the u.s. is talking abilities washington, i guess. basically do not understand china. they do not. the thought -- if you spend any china, the thought that the growth of china, including a certain degree of expansion of forces, that this

military threat to the united states is way out in left field. there's never been a school of thought in china to solve our out and we need to go conquer other countries, never. the part that used to go on with the emperor has been back and forth. that's a different thing. i don't think the chinese think way, what we need is conque conquest. had that n that problem. so i think we don't understand that. we don't understand that intention -- we know it's still and we don't st understand it really has nothing to do with communism whatsoever. do with lot more to capitalism.

also i think, our china policy and people in congress, it tends to be based not on our national interest, think is going to play well back home and get the votes. it.'s a tragedy on so some people i mentioned schumer, when he went to shanghai and had conversations about china, it was like he was talking to a different man. find anybody more reasonable and amiable. full of in washington, fire. >> he was the head of the young democrats. college editor of the paper. we had certain tasks. area this point, the one where i think a troubled u.s. now most focused is threat.a china has sort of

state-sponsored commercial espionage. view? your talkhad the opportunity to with a person in the fbi who's one of the people in charge of the warfare. again, cyberwarfare. made said to him, he just t -- wasn't that long, about the terrible threat with cyberwarfare. i asked him -- what i asked him i said, isn't it true that -- oh, don't worry. i've proven that. but we don't talk about that. and -- and i agree with that. and the people i talked with ast week made the same point too. i think the point one, the i don't think the u.s. used a state or cybercommercial end. other may be off of the threat. it's a cyberattack. it's something with

confidence-building measures and all that. -- me ask you a different >> the geneva conference on cyber. >> something, just having the sides. week the first level response was the symptoms of the same thing. to thisnd is to be open kind of negotiation. my express view on the biggest china's continued development and the biggest problem china creates for the world is e environmental certainly what's is the g in china now same in kind of what happened in germany and london and l.a. when pittsburgh.and but the scale is so different from anything that the world has seen before. grounds for optimism? china's dealing with this environmental problem? optimism is s for they now take it very, very seriously. not do that before.

they're spending billions and billions to deal with it. it's already a presence, so you don't -- you don't get rid of it just by spending your money overnight. it's going to take time. but i think they will be able to deal with it in time. it is critical now just to live beijing is a danger to your health. really is. if you check the hospital manifests. re, it >> witness to some of this in this room that they're doing. dense effort of cooperative efforts between the u.s. and china on this front. however, birth defect epidemics. that does seem to me in a way stability of the regime in a way that some other might not be.

>> if the regime is positive in with air and water pollution, that's confidence. one thing he's saying is empty talk will ruin us. it's practical action we need. the lightning round of the discussion. a few more minutes for the all of efore we turn to yo you. should we think about the china and ainland taiwan. those who say the status can go on indefinitely. provoked to another crisis. what do you think? 30 years from now, what's going to be the relationship. >> they will gradually move to some sort of confederation agreement. some sort of an association. become an actual prove inls of china, i think, is difficult. robably take a long, long time if it happens.

really necessary if the saying -- i don't published ether it's or not, was that if we can agree that we have one national withm, one flag, one title china and you won't send soldiers or police to taiwan. and we won't send officials. but their officials will come central part in the government, that's okay, i've explained. i think it may move in that gradually. but so far, it's okay. the way it is today, it seems to okay. t's pretty region.oving around the north korea. can and should china be doing more to control north korea? know, jobbing it's about control.

>> they cut off some of the stuck some nd they of the exports, not the main not fuel and so on. and they made unpleasant voices showing their dissatisfaction. me what we're whereg for is a situation they do their best working their side of the street. of the street.e it seems to me the key, really, dennis am balls door rodman -- [ laughter ] talkhat is that we need to with him. todoesn't make nip sense not talk to people just because you disagree with them. that's exactly the time you need to talk. we refuse to talk directly

with the north koreans. to me, that doesn't make any sense. this young guy there who needs recognition. recognition, mainly from us. so what would it cost us to get ofittle recognition in terms diplomatic talks and so on. there's much more hope there than there is in further control of china. ecause what the chinese are afraid of, certainly in one thing, the same thing washington was great at. that if you put too much pressure, the regime suddenly.apse then we'll have millions and millions of refugees. what ey're mindful of happened to west germany when east germany collapsed. happen.n't want that to >> how about china's more defined responsibility as a major power in the world. syria, sudan, would the chinese accepting become more

of international requests to do the right things in those areas? >> i think they will. you know, there's been a process where we and others have been to coax ind of trying them out, not to fear their to hope forut to -- in the participate solution of international issues directly necessarily involve them. middle east directly involves them. you don't have to invite them there. so does north korea and so on. it's a process because the not to get s been involved if you can help it. saying that it's better to have one less thing one more thing. so it's gradually changing. to learn how to do -- how to get involved in the positive way.

it's not something that you're born there. the international do in the case of tibet to increase of religious liberties in tibet? >> you investigate the situation. publicize things that the religious community feels wrong there. but i don't think anybody should be -- suffer from the delusion that tibet is going to independent.nd be the dalai lama for almost two saying, we has been don't want independence, we want genuine autonomy. is, if you examine proproposal that they make, it amounts to actual independence without being independence.

it would take away 25% of the china.ory of so it's not that easy to do. i think it's going to putter some things ow, we'll get worse, some things better, until tibet is the ally assimilated in distance future. i don't see any other way. monasteries are operating full blast. the only problem is that the are controlled by a committee of the communist party supposedly atheist. it's kind of awkward to have a religious monastery run by a bunch of atheists. so these things can change. targeted fact-based pressure can change these things can be effective. for uson't think support to have independence is

effective. tougher. t makes us >> one more specific question i'm going to ask you a wrapping up question, chinese expanding at a ferocious pace. they're turning out more engineers than the rest of the combined, etc.,est. this was a volume of international holding levels as under the current system, censor thip, the press and the internet systems, you can't deal issue. at >> it's not just -- the quality f many of the graduate engineering schools can't be compared to our guys and gals. that's true. on the other hand, there are brilliant people coming out of of that.'ve seen some brilliant people in all parts of high-tech. electronics nce or

or whatever, really impressed with them. of the graduates engineering school, but young high school graduates have own and are eir phenomenal. so. >> so this is a chance to give you the big picture which i'm going to set up this way. in were born and raised south carolina. you went to the university of north carolina. you involved were in racial -- racial justice attles and labor justice battles and all the rest. so you've seen your original this stand over with its liberalization, the richness, and also the sclerosis of various kinds. china in the 1940s to now gone war-torn area to the great power. it's official. how would you compare the successes of these two surprises? seen them in -- in

your lifetime? you've watched your opponent transform. how do you feel about america's rogress over your lifetime versus china's. >> the transformation of the phenomenal. we went back to charleston the in 1979.e i saw the young students going to charleston, black, white, street, holding girls. boys and and i said, that's a real revolution. have been killed, absolutely killed if you appeared on the streets like that when i was living there. but generally speaking, i don't hink our progress compares to the progress of china. hat country, when i got to 1945. in 70% of the people in that

country were hungry. what do you live on? of the year. meat, poultry? not even on chinese new year. on chinese new year you would have dumplings, but just the habit or something inside, no meat. the change now is absolutely phenomenal. and they keep changing. the feeling of momentum, and you

expressed this very well in your book, the feeling of momentum in the chinese people is so powerful. that is what is so impressive. even though they might be very dissatisfied with lots of things in their lives, the government, in a kiosk we were had the newnd they ipad before the apple store did. lots of them did. [laughter] the genuine article, not counterfeit. youked the woman, how do get them. she said, we don't know, they bring them in suitcases. said, you know, some people think that in five years, your gdp will be larger than ours. she immediately said, it won't take five years.

you cannot get that response from anyone today, not like that. there has been qualitative and enormous. the progress in our country, aside from the change in race , has just been brick by brick. >> but the bricks were higher to begin with. with that, i would like you to thankingin me in rittenberg for this extraordinary conversation. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up, a discussion about hackingvista computer

and then a discussion with the honeywell ceo. erg onen sidney rittenb his years in china. >> if it were a state, it would be in the top five oil producers in the nation. in a little more context, 75% of all oil production in california is done in kern county and over 50% of the natural gas produced in california is right here in kern county. county, wee in this are looking at oil, agriculture, the two largest industries that theave and it really turns economy. >> explore the history and literary life of bakersfield, california, on c-span 2's book tv and on c-span 3, american history tv.

>> making the transition from journalism to books is exhilarating, overwhelming, and frightening, but wonderful. >> why did you make that choice? toi had long been wanting work on a book, the freedom it allows you to really dive into a topic, these yourself, go off on tangents and have enough time to really explore it fully. >> taboo scientist living in space, the afterlife, the human digestive system. a best-selling author mary roach will take calls, e-mails, and tweets sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2. >> computer networks and the legal ramifications, from the annual format pace university, this is two hours.

>> she is the scholar on these topics. her first book, "coding freedom" is published by princeton university. she is working on a book on anonymous and digital media. go to her website. she is a prolific speaker. you can find a lot of her stuff that is really amazing. will potter is another amazing writer, journalist, author and public speaker. he is a leading authority on the animal rights and environmental movements. you can find his writing in outlets such as "rolling stone,"

"mother jones," "the los angeles times," "the washington post." he is also on radio. i suggest seeing a recent debate that he had with animal industry pr person that was great. i think will won. his book "green is the new red" provides an excellent look at the post-9/11 assault on the animal rights and environment movements, and labeling activists and terrorists. last but not least, grainne o'neill, lawyer for the hacktivist jeremy hammond. she recieved a jd from columbia law, and a ba in mathematics and computer science from cornell. she was a public defender in new orleans.

she became direct or of the legal systems of technology, and developed new tools to enhance the performance of her fellow attorneys. a round of applause for these panelists. [applause] i am going to start off with an introduction, laying a framework about what is information activism, and why it is important for democracy. this is an excellent quote. this is thomas jefferson. it lays out two important things, i think. information is necessary, a necessary fuel for the

democratic fire. the mechanism that was used for this in the founding period really was the separation of powers and in the bill of rights. the freedom of the press. it is the mechanism that allows information to be desseminated to the public. when we talk about what it means, all of these founding fathers were members of the press as well. the press at this time was not a corporate moneyed press. it was a political, vibrant, independent press. the constitution says freedom of the press, it means the freedom

to speak anonymously, as well as what we are doing. it was normal within political discourse to speak anonymously. that is something that has been lost in our concept of free press. in a sense, these guys were the first anons. i was talking about the information. how did it flow in checks and balances? i'm representing information with these blue arrows. the constitutional system requires a flow of information between the branches of government. the government cannot work when that, when the information is

disrupted. the press is this mediator between the back and forth. another element here, it is not particularly exclusive or contemplative within our framework, which is the corporation. especially during the beginning of the founding of the country. the corporation was a body of government. any information that corporations provide or force to provide is a result of law. corporation is a legal fiction. this is a trend that we have seen over the past few years, which is -- to be 60-70 years.

an expansion of the executive branch of government. an increasing opaqueness to that branch am i taking over the other branches of government, and restricting the flow of information from all branches of government. often aided by the other branches of government. a few examples of this, this is the number of documents that have been declassified, starting in 1980. that you can see the trends. especially compared to over similar time, this is the number of classifications of documents that have been classified. you can see the spike here, which is the creation of a whole separate internet. it is the world's largest dark net.

a government contractor, semi private arrangement where massive amounts of information are being shared. that involves, the last figures i saw were 5 million people contractors with access to this classified world. back to our diagram. the executive has gotten larger and more opaque. at the same time, the corporate sector has gotten larger. i do not think this is adequate. what we really have seen in the world of government information is emerging of the corporation and the government and a large part of the press. it involves the military- industrial complex, and all of these forms of national security. the press is a huge part of

that. we have seen the corporate press get with this system. you can't make corporate press, the heyday of the corporate press, that actually had an affect on the public. where we have seen the corporate press where we are today, propaganda for war. i do not think anybody embodies us more than thomas friedman in terms of the vacuous warmongering nature of the corporate media.

so, here we have a number of corporations that control the media over this time that we are talking about. it tells that story in another way. we have this corporate stage. we have small amounts of information being mediated through actual media. we have large amounts of propaganda coming through the media. have a same time, we have a huge amount of information coming from the public into the whole. the black box of the corporate state. i do not think anyone embodies

us more than michael bloomberg, who orchestrated massive spying campaigns. he was the master of massive spying campaigns on the muslim community. he says this type of spine is inevitable. to put it simply, we have seen massive increases in corporate and government secrecy, a decrease in individual privacy. after the nsa revelation, we're about here. who has taken on the corporate state? has there been -- what are the successes, the mechanisms which information has come out? i have broadly outlined four categories. when i said journalist, i do not mean the people on tv. i am not talking about brian williams. i am, the green green walls of the world, people who are taking on power. people who are not within the power system, but were trying to take it on. a, leakers, activists, and hackers.

i'm going to go through examples of the corporate state response to people within these categories. here we have journalists, a few examples. james rosen's is not independent journalist. julian assange, -- and the private, public workings of that has been set up in a really bad situation by the fbi, facing 100 years worth of charges and denied bail in a jail in texas. we see leakers. bradley manning, these are people who are exposed to

certain degrees of government legality, government wrongdoing, and torture programs. the innocent people, millions of dollars wasted on bundling money to private hands for useless projects. bradley manning exposing war crimes. they have been treating accordingly. bradley manning is facing a life sentence. the nsa whistleblowers are all career long nsa people, their homes raided and careers ruined. here is another category of activists. these are animal rights activists who have been very effective at their work.

there was a huge campaign against them, very successful at damaging the credibility. it is an effort to stop their practices. the phenomenon that we see here is terrorism prosecutions used against these people. no one here actually harmed or intended to harm any person. these are animal rights activists. nonetheless, they have been treated as terrorist. 22 year sentence, labeled terrorist. the shac 7 ran a website. that was their crime. these are the more famous hacking groups. the paypal 14 were accused of

ddos-ing paypal sites. you requested website over and over again in an attempt to slow it down or stop temporarily. they have all been indicted with federal charges. lulzsec is similar. their main hacking charges for breaking into a company, extracting documents, and releasing them to wikileaks. it revealed lots of illegal activity, spying on activists, bribing foreign officials. these are things that were exposed. the government has chosen to prosecute the people who expose rather than the corporate malfeasance.

i'm going to close and open it up to gabriella next. i wanted to and with this slide. i think it is a really telling story that this is a painting, by george w. bush of himself, released by hacker. i think that this tells a story. when contrasted to what he wants you to think of him as, this is the world that -- what is a reality? what is the world want to live in? the world more power -- or the real world? where power is exposed. i want to welcome gabriella. [applause]

>> i will just up and by thanking y'all for putting the panel panel together. it is great to be here. also, for those, recognize a few people in the audience to sell my talk i gave a few days ago. it is similar but longer. there is added value. i wanted to mention that. what i'm going to do today is actually, the first half is to give background on anonymous. there's is quite a bit of misinformation about them. what is addition about them is that they are a domain where hackers are important, but they are more open than that. they integrate participants from many different backgrounds, one of the reasons why they grown so much. they talk about why they are so important, and way they are so distinctive at some level. that is important because as we

get to the crackdown against them, it is a crackdown against the rise of civil disobedience online. it is in its early history. the legal crackdowns really can have an affect. i am just going to start now. you can see all of my slides. here is a question without an easy answer. who is anonymous? after four years of research, i still struggle for an adequate answer. since 2000, different groups of hackers have organized very different groups using this name. participants have taken on very diverse causes, from rape cases

to leaking. a rally most around censorship and privacy. one thing is certain. anonymous is tailor-made for the news. it is widely actioned, it feeds into the media's appetite for the sensational. i want to correct two of the most common misconceptions about them. many journalists portray them not only as hackers, but is something like the honey badgers of activism. the honey badger is a frightening and fastening animal. incredibly brave, incredibly stupid.

apparently, it can propel lions and go after honey bees. basically, the slides -- that should work. ok. the honey badger is frightening, incredibly brave and stupid. like the narrative goes, these hackers just to not give a shit. they are just quite shocked that their actions may seem more mature. this thing is possessed. let's see if this takes care of it. it is for this reason that i

have been asked over 20 times about anonymous's transition. every time they do an operation it seems more mature, they say they are maturing. they are going into adulthood. fair enough. the birth of anonymous can perhaps be located as a time of transition. for those that may not know, prior to the name being used for activism, the name anonymous was used primarily for internet trolling and cranking. do you know? it is not my computer. they basically were named by trolls to go on cranking campaigns.

in 2008, they went on a campaign against the church of scientology. through a very complicated set of reasons, they decided to earnestly protest the church of scientology. a political movement was born. it still goes. sorry about this. let me try one more thing. there is a setting where -- do you know? it should work.

it should work.

basically, there is this a narrative, everyone thinks they are immature. when anonymous got involved in tunisia, when they got involved in rape cases, journalists are like they are maturing. over and over again. really, this is not a good way to understand anonymous. in some ways, irreverence is part of what they do. if we are going to identify the honey badgers of anonymous, that

title can be reserved for lulzsec. they had to break away because there was no rhyme or reason for their hacks. they went on a hacking spree. it revealed a lot of important information. it certainly is the case that they had to break away. anonymous had developed a political culture where they basically got triggered into action for reasons. it was still very important, because it inspired hackers to continue hacking in this again. a lot of individuals got involved with anti-sec. it was born out of the internet internet humor. operations are earnest, but if an opportunity arises, someone

might inject a dose of lulz. anonymous was spurred into action when rapid transit sought to shut down phone reception to floor anti-police brutality. individuals hacked into computers, and someone found a individuals hacked into computers, and someone found a semi nude photo and republish it on the bart website with this rationalization. if you're going to be a dick to the public, i am sure you do not mind showing it to the public. deviance and humor remain a part of the culture. who was anonymous may be hard to answer.

it is best viewed as a protest ensemble. it is the face of popular unrest across the globe, the streets of spain, to the streets of turkey more recently, and even they showed up in the parliament chambers when polish commentaries took on the masks to protest the copyright statute. anonymous is unique in its unpredictability. it is also part of a broader ecosystem, the weapons of the geek. an increasing number of hackers and geeks are taking political matters into their own hands. hackers seem to be everywhere. they are misunderstood. i think there are many things i can say to clear up the misunderstandings. the one thing i want to say is that they are not all

libertarians in basements. those exist, but really it is a very diverse group of individuals who exist all over the world. their political interventions here have intervened in a number of ways. hackers have reinvented the law. those that oppose copyright have created the copyleft. others have built tools to prevent from corporate snooping. there are dozens of other examples which come to mind. even policy geeks are educating politicians and d.c. in this, anonymous specializes in defiance of protest. they are good at three things. the first is they are good at amplifying existing causes. in this way, they are very event driven and reactive, which is what makes them unpredictable. hacking and linking are to proactive exceptions to these.

they are good at boosting existing oppositional social movements, whether it is in turkey or the occupy, or the arab spring. they become a really important pr wing. the one that i think is most interesting is when they convert discontent into tangible form. did this well when a bunch of companies stopped accepting donations for wikileaks. a bunch of people then joined in with anonymous to ddos these websites. it became an action. let me now hone in on what makes them distinctive. sorry about the slides.

i am fighting with them. anonymous has taught us that the internet will judge swiftly the actions of individuals, corporations, and governments. they exploit our digital predicament. whether it is accessed legally or illegally, it is impossible to contain and sequester. and that the publicity, anonymous can create a pr nightmare for its targets. they're hot what i said it makes -- keeps the media's sensation well fed.

anonymous is good at ruining reputations. they are notorious, and it is difficult to smear theirs. they do not need to congeal funders pray without a master plan, gives them expend mental freedom and thought and action. occasionally, they been branded terrorist. this damagingly was not stuck. why have they grown so rapidly? there are many reasons. i am just want to highlight a few. they are the quintessential anti-brand brand. allowing the idea and into taken by anyone. they are far more open and accessible compared to other spheres of hacker activity. hackers are essential. they hunt information to leak and that the majority of the headlines. however, anyone can join simply by saying so. this is an important point. most people join existing groups or networks of which they are

simultaneously in existence. they are often this idea that they exist out in the ether. in fact, you can go and find them and talk to them. non-hackers write, edit videos. organizers are important for the advise and inspire between groups to form teams. anonymous's beauty lies in its openness and flexibility. they are difficult to predict, much less govern. this is good because it prevents assimilation and neutralization by institutional actors, including political groups. they like to boast that we are not your personal army. there is the question as to whether their actions can be counterproductive. there are critiques leveled against anonymous. they say they are going to be

used to pass repressive laws that curtail civil liberties. this is a ridiculous argument. those civil liberties have already been so curtailed and eroded that they didn't exist, and we would still be in the same boat that we are, which is a frightening sinking boat of privacy. [laughter] anonymous has to be seen as a reaction to and not a cause of this trend. why they are so important is that they are the most important training grounds for activists. this is really important. they are a factory generating a bunch of activists. i participating in anonymous, individuals become part of something larger than themselves. i've collected many narratives of individuals who have gotten involved, either a seasoned activist, or as first-time activist.

one my favorite is a video editor who has made over 90 videos for anonymous. he recently made a video for operation guantanamo, that was incredible. i will pass the leak around if i can. he just graduated from high school in may. it is a good indication of the way that anonymous acts. pseudo-anonymity is really interesting to their political culture. the first thing i want to emphasize is that it actually has secured diversity among those who have participated. that is because you do not -- you are not identified as a leftist, or being of a certain class. what has allowed for is a really odd conglomeration of people. there are wealthy engineers,

high school students, phd students, recovering addicts, activists, movies, political variations. -- buddhists, political variations. when you hide yourself and your background, weird connections are tried. i find this fascinating and important. on the flip side, there is a tension that arises. especially among those to break the law, or those that come for the lawbreakers. you may initially hide the self, but once you engage in prolonged action, you create to share the self, desires, and dreams. many become friends, and when they probably should not.

one hacker captured the conundrum in the following way when he was chatting with me. he said -- the hardest is the silence. when we have trouble or stress. there is no one to talk to, no friend to understand or who i'd trust with it. the advantage is anons can resurrect and work in again. are you come it will keep following. there is no changes for you. he is confessing to me what makes it so hard, and what is great about anonymous. he can reinvent himself. you can reach out to others and trust others. the downfalls of the individuals came at the heels of them revealing too much information about themselves. there is interesting than next to the anonymity. what i would like to mention as a transition is that independent of the social logical dynamics,

there are ethical dynamics when it comes to their commitment to anonymity. the concept shapes multiple ethical categories. this is important because i do not think there are many bases where the anonymity is thriving in a cultural sense. while anonymous cannot be pigeonholed into a single political position, there is ethical consistency to their actions. there is a collective prohibition to seek fame and attention. captured in this oscar wilde quote. is least himself when he talks in his own person.

give him a mask and he will tell you the truth." it can be about the right not to understand, to confuse, to tease, to parody others. he is right not to be taken literally, to live a life. finally, anonymous through deeds and symbols dramatize the importance of anonymity in a air -- in an era where privacy is rapidly eroding. the final point about why they are so interesting and important is that even though anonymous is often misunderstood, reviled by some, they are not totally marginalized in the way to a lot of radical movements are. why this is so is a very complicated story. there is a few issues that are worth highlighting. they are unpredictable.

it keeps people enamored with them. they are effective in many ways. they are effective at getting attention, inspire other use, and leaking information, and changing the outcomes of cases they get involved in, such as the rape cases they got involved in. their unpredictability and media savviness, and tangible outcomes make them harder to the delegitimate. that is all i want to say to let me conclude. anonymous may not be the best recipe for democracy. it lacks transparency because of its illegal tactics. misinformation abounds. at times, a few operations do creep close to vigilantism.

proposed a plan to topple institutions, but it made baiting laws undesirable, even possible. it explains why he joined, one organizer told me i was sold on the rates because i had been an activist for 4-5 years. i just experienced that once vested interest, lobbying will not get it changed without scaring them a little. we should worry about the future of this digital event, especially in the united states. as we saw with aaron swartz, a hacker who committed suicide as he was in the middle of a horrible legal proceeding over downloading journal articles, facing many years in jail, and jeremy hammond, one of these

groups who were leaking information, we will see how the computer fraud and abuse that can be wielded as a blunt legal tool by prosecutors and willing to differentiate between principled action and criminal activity. it is treated as a political act, while others as criminal activity. the fines may ruin you financially. even the internet dominance in every aspect of our daily lives, citizens should not be discouraged developing political will online. in order for the institute

further sustain democratic life, from campaign to civil disobedience. i will turn it over to our next speaker. [applause] >> i do not have a powerpoint for you. i'm going to talk about the law, and how it is intersecting with the state. i first want to talk little bit about what she was talking but earlier, what we're seeing in trends. there is increasing government surveillance of us. there is increasing corporate surveillance of the us. people who are exposing his or being more and more heavily prosecuted. that point cannot be underscored enough. i just wanted to talk about that, and how people are being prosecuted. the government is using this

law, the cfaa. it was unbelievably written in 1984. that is ironic for all the reasons why you would imagine. if you think about it, it was written at a time before there were computers the same way they are today. the law is incredibly broad. it is frightening, really. almost anyone that touches the computer could be prosecuted under the law. whenever you come to a new website, a facebook page, myspace account, and you take a terms of service agreement, and you do not obey those terms, you are in violation of the computer fraud and abuse act. you face five years in prison for that. if you made a myspace account for your dog, if you share the

netflix password, if you look at your friend's hbo account,five years each count. any of us can probably be prosecuted under this act. we are not. who is prosecuted? the government is using it to prosecute whistleblowers, activists, leakers and hackers. it is being used as a political weapon against information my client, hammond, is a hacker. he has pled guilty to hacking a private spying on activists. he was spying on occupy wall street. the information was leaked is incredible.

it is still being trickled out through wikileaks. the government has not investigated any of this malfeasance. what happened was, when he was arrested, he was charged with many counts of violations of the cfaa. he was looking at 80 years in prison. he plead guilty to one count. now he faces between 0-10 years in prison. it is up to the judge. it is very serious. his actions were political. they were aimed at exposing malfeasance. we saw with aaron swartz, he was arrested for downloading journal articles.

he is a student. we have access to j store, and he had access to it through his university. he was accused of downloading too many articles. he ticked the box and he did not abide by them. he was facing decades in prison. the government, it seems that the government was very upset about his politics. about his prior work gambling -- downloading information from pacer, website the government runs about our core proceedings. we have a public court system. we are supposed to be entitled to look at the documents that arrived. in reality, we are charged six cents per page to the court -- to look at court documents.

this does not make any sense in the digital age. aaron was accused of downloading them. that and his work stopping sopa, he was successful at this. seems like they really threw the book at him because of this violation of the terms of service agreement. most recently, the steubenville rape case, what happened what that was in a football town, these young men committed a really heinous gang rape of a young woman, and unbelievably, they tweeted the entire thing. in the town, the police, nobody prosecuted them.

all the was there. anonymous exposed all of this. they made the town, the state, the prosecutors, the government, the police look bad. they made them look at they had not done their job. two of the men who participated received 1-2 years in prison. just last week, they arrested one of the people who they are accusing of exposing this information. he is probably -- they searched his home. if they proceed with the indictment, he will probably spend decades in prison for exposing this. these are the kinds of things that are now being done. i think contrary to what she said, i do not agree that they are not looking at these

as political crimes. they are definitely looking at these actions as political, and prosecuting them at a higher standard. but you're seeing if someone commits similar crimes, hacking into computer, downloads credit card information, cells on the black market, they're receiving one year in prison. if they do the same thing with a political motivation, we are seeing these compounded charges, facing decades in prison. it is a very different scenario. instead of providing protections for speech, and political speech, which in our constitution and held to the highest tender, they are criminalizing it. this is all very scary. i just want to close with things that you can do to help. all these people were being prosecuted, a lot of them have defense websites. jeremy hammond does. you can look on there to see

what the people supporting the case are doing. i think even more importantly, we have a little bit of power still. some of that power is that this is our country, but are also our computers. how many of us are using google to store our e-mail, and allowing corporations to give the information to the nsa? how many of us are not encrypting our e-mail? i think that we have a responsibility as citizens or its people to try to use some of these tools to protect ourselves, to protect ourselves and activist. we may not be sharing these things that are not of note to the government. why are we sharing at all? where he giving it to google and -- whyng facebook with her

be giving it to google and updating facebook with our activities? that is all. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for coming. i know there is a lot of events going on that are asking for your time and attention. thank you for being here, and for organizing this panel. i'm trying to talk as i'm doing this. [laughter]

it worked. my work seems narrowly focused on animal rights and environmental activists becoming the number one domestic terrorism threat. the arc that i traced in my book, i go into how all this happened. beginning with the creation of a of a new word in the 1980's, before any of this was talked about, it was created by corporations for this purpose of demonizing their opposition. with september 11, it took on a much greater power. using this rhetoric became a vastly different type of tool than it was. now with the expansion and our

over-reliance on the internet -- web technologies, that has shifted again. the purpose of my talk is to focus on something that when i started reporting on this, i never would've thought it possible. the rhetoric was all about illegal underground groups like the animal liberation front. to a lesser extent, earth first, who have released animals from laboratories, burned down suvs, breaking into the facilities to take video documentations, and steal the animals. it was this rhetoric of the underground, these illegal terrorists that had to be cracked down on that was the message from corporations. what we're seeing now is a complete shift from these illegal groups to mainstream above ground nonprofits. everything i'm going to be talking about needs to be seen in that context, how much has changed in the last 25 years. specifically, i'm going to focus

on a series of bills and laws that have introduced around the country called ag-gag legislation. there have been undercover investigations that have really rocked the agriculture industry. they have exposed heinous abuses and illegal activity. they have exposed standard industry practices. they led to the largest meat recall in the u.s. history. the slaughterhouse was taking sick cows and being fed to children. it is very dangerous abuse of this industry in terms of consumer health violations.

led to the largest meat recall in u.s. history. through the work of undercover investigators. in north carolina, investigators exposed workers beating turkeys with metal pipes. abuse so horrendous that it actually led to felony prosecution. on top of that, a coordination between the top ag officials and butterball, who try to tip off organizations of this would be happening. investigators also found out about this. she resigned in a massive political scandal. rewrite thebegan to dialogue. the third way that these investigations rattled the industry. it is the most important.

headlines like this. body slamming piglets to death is humane. this is about business as usual. the industry is trying to defend what happens every single day as it is being exposed to millions of people. the rhetoric of industry, this is the rhetoric of government and all corporations, is that we do not need policing or oversight. most people would be shocked to learn of agriculture industry actually has zero laws, not one that protects farm animals during their lives. the animal welfare act does not apply to animals that are raised for food. it only applies to animals at the time of their death, and that law exempts poultry, which are 90% of the animals that are killed on factory farms. on top of that, 25 states carve

out specific exemptions for customary practices, and those premises are defined by industry itself as whenever they see as business as usual. in other words, between 8-9 billion animals are killed every single year for food in this country alone. i say all this because it puts investigators in a different light. they are the only way that we can know what is going on behind closed doors. the response to these investigations has not been to change animal welfare standards, or to change the abusive

practices, but to get the people who are exposing them. they were 10 bills introduced last year that criminalize undercover investigations of factory farms and slaughterhouses. they include language i will talk about in a minute about banning photography, videos, and enhance criminal penalties for that. this has passed in several states. they are green on the map. in 2013, 12 bills have been introduced. they had been defeated in every state. in tennessee, it got to the governor's desk. that's how toxic it became. i will talk about how there is one bill pending, by far the worst that has been introduced. these bills have really evolved into three different types.

you should know about them. the bread and butter, the standard criminalizing photography. it includes language like this. anyone who records an image or a sound from a factory farm and who uploads,anyone downloads, transfers or otherwise since recorded images of or sound from the agricultural operations over the internet. the second type of bill is what i will call mandatory reporting requirements. the industry is trying to say, we are not trying to outlaw these investigations. we care how animals are treated. if workers see this, you have to report it in 24 hours. if you're not familiar with these issues, it sounds reasonable. if you see workers beating

turkeys with pipes, you should tell somebody about it. you know, see something, say something, right? those are the catchphrases that are used. but it's important to remember that on some of the most marginalized, disenfranchised populations, people who don't speak english, who don't have easy access to attorneys, the thought of blowing the whistle on these abuses, they could lose their job and not be able to provide for their family. it's an unfair burden on them. that's what this is about. the third type of bill focuses on misrepresentation. that is an attempt to go after people who are applying for work lawfully and the industry gets punked on this. they didn't realize who was applying for the job, didn't do their research, and they try to go after them in hindsight as having

fraudulent intention in applying for a job. the important thing to remember is it's one thing to pad your resume applying for a job. applying for a job here at the university i'm sure there are some professors who have done that to enhance their c.v. a bit and that's totally appropriate to ask questions about. it's not something that's appropriate to go to jail for five years. we've all heard of alec? alec in 2003, they gave $10,000 to the organization and in exchange they get a seat at the table in drafting legislations.

those bills are taken and introduced where the colleagues have no idea that the legislation was written by smith-klein, monsanto, the others. this animal and terrorism act was written by these industries. the model includes things like undercover investigations and really dangerous language about materially or financially supporting people who are doing things like this in order to prepare, plan, carry out or promote these activities. this is not just about undercover investigators, about arsonists or the animal liberation front. it's about people like us. make absolutely no mistake about the intent of this language. it's about people who are sharing the information on line, writing about it, and people like me who

are speaking out in defense of political prisoners. this all has to be viewed in the post-9/11 context. this is from the freedom of information act documented, obtained from the fbi that shows the bureau was actually considering terrorism prosecutions against undercover investigators as far as as 1993. this isn't about property destruction or arson. this is about people taking photographs. this is another foia request. these are presentations given by the fbi to new fbi agents. this is one page on animal rights and eco-activists. notice them being engaged in a

public relations war, how media is vital to every part of their campaigns. god forbid, sometimes media is even slanted in their favor and sometimes they use celebrities. this rhetoric, in addition to being a top fbi priority of a terrorism threat is also embraced by corporations and of course politicians. when that meat recall happened in california and soon after, another investigation shut down the slaughterhouse, the industry put pressure on law makers, members of congress, who in turn sent a letter to the usdaand said undercover investigations were an act of terrorism. these were things that protected public safety and exposed illegal activity. now the industry has just gone off the deep end with how they talk about these things.

they're comparing them to hate crimes. they're saying it's no different than carving out special legislation to go after people who were are burning crosses and attacking people at mosques. there's kind of a difference! difference being that one is about exposing information in order to benefit the public and empower us as consumers and individuals in a democracy, the other is about instilling fear using violence against disenfranchised groups. now all this being said, if there is something to leave you all with through this presentation, and i think it's a positive one, i say that because these ag-gag bills have overwhelmingly backfired across the country. this is a really good example. the chronicle had an editorial talking about how this was the

worst p.r. gaffe since new coke. i would have tweaked have a little and said crystal pepsi. that's how bad this was for industry. but that's what happens, every time one of these ag-gag bills comes up, the clips run. the youtube videos are embedded. and as they're speaking saying we care so much about animals, all this, the animal abuse footage is rolling behind them. i mean it's unbelievable how much this has backfired. not only people like carrie underwood, but it's a very main stream demographic that's not left, not activist, that's not animal rights, that's outraged by this. i think a fantastic example of this, of how toxic sunshine is to these bills, is the first prosecution that happened in utah.

a woman named amy meyer was charged for filming a slaughter house from the public easement. she went to this place because she knew abuse was happening. she heard that cows were being pushed around by bulldozers, much like that situation that led to the largest meat recall in u.s. history, and she had an interest in seeing what was happening the happening. i have a video i'll be putting up on my website. but it shows heavy equipment moving these sick animals and she was charged.

i wrote an electoral article about it on my own web site and in 24 hours it was getting hundreds of thousands of views. went up on reddit and it brought the site down. i know that word viral doesn't mean a lot any more, but i think this legitimately went viral pretty fast. the prosecutor was like, ok, we're going to drop all the charges. think about what this reflects. this is criminal activity u until the point people know what's going on and get pissed off about it and then it's oh, no, no, no, we didn't mean to do that, amy is not going to be prosecuted. this north carolina bill that's still pending is not about agriculture. it's not about factory farming or slaughter houses. it is so broad it includes every industry and i'm not being hyperbolic there. it is called the commerce protection act. it includes tim perks mining, processing, workers rights

violation at an automobile plant to someone exposing food safety issues at a cream cheese processor. i don't know why i pick these examples -- it could be anything. it could be monsanto because everyone is talking about monday -- about it right now. they're wrapped up in this legislation as well. it's really a reflection of how all this is expanding radically and expanding overseas. all of these tactics and arrests are showing up in spain, austria, finland, france, the u.k. so to wrap this up and to leave a bit of time for question and answer i think we need to dispel this rhetoric of the terrorism apparatus only being used against criminals. what we're seeing is if you are effective enough, organized and bold and ambitious enough and are actually threatening corporate profits, criminal activity is redefined. that really is a theme throughout all the presentations you just heard. to me, though, that's incredibly

inspiring. i focus on some pretty dark, depressing, horrible stuff as my, i guess, chosen area of work and it's not the most uplifting work but this gives me a whole lot of work because you have a group of people that have a couple hundred dollars worth of course video and audio equipment that are rattling the industry to their core. we all have this. some of the biggest industries on the planet are terrified of this, of using this to take photo and video documentation. they are also terrified not only about using that but about sharing it easily and cheaply on line. if sinclair had a youtube account the dialogue would have changed that much faster. so in that spirit, thank you all

for having me. [applause] >> all right. well, thanks, everyone. i want to ask a couple questions of the panel, and then we're going to open it up. we have about 40 minutes left so we're good on time. i wanted to ask specifically to grainne, but i'd be curious to hear the cfa seems to be a law that's taken over and usurped any other laws in terms of this type of activism for hackers. they don't need ag-gag when they have the csa, right? could you tell us just how the u.s. is going after hackers and these types as opposed to other countries? >> sure. so one of the really interesting things that happened as part of

the lulsac case is that it was an international group of anons that turned out to be involved and there were two on the indictment from ireland and two from england and jeremy hammond from the u.s. and what happened was that in ireland, the two people were spoken with by the police there and then were sort of let go. i'm sure there is a trial in ireland, but -- no one ever talked about it. i guess i'm misinformed about this. but in england there was just the two people who were arrested and eventually pled guilty and were sentenced to between no time,

probation, and 30 months. and in england, 30 months means 15 months and kind of just as a practicing attorney in the u.s. i just kind of couldn't believe it. but your time in prison is counted if you are on house arrest. they were all on house arrest during the time, so basically all of their time is already served. and i think that the u.s. is probably not going to extradite them here, but if they were to come here they would be facing 40 years in prison. what we're seeing with jeremy is the time he's been incarcerated without bail, the judge denied him any bail. rapists are routinely granted bail. other hackers are granted bay. -- bail. he is not allowed out at all under any circumstances. so he has already served the same amount of time in prison that his co-defendants could have served.

it's a totally out of whack regime in the united states from an international perspective. it's just completely different. in the u.k., the news also was saying how they received these really, really harsh sentences that amounted to make 30 days in prison and they were such extreme sentences. i was watching it with robby and he was ok, my god, this is going to be really high! >> the judge kept saying this is a grievous crime, it's terrible what you all did. and it's like 30 months. you let.s.that is like him off easy. >> yeah, the same is true throughout the u.s. criminal justice system, too. we would be remiss to not point out that the drug wars have been happening and young black and brown men have been going to prison on bogus conspiracy charges for decades. and right now we have an opportunity to draw a new group

of people's attention to that. the u.s. prison-industrial complex is out of control in many ways. we're seeing that with the cfa and seeing that with the targeting of political people but it's happening throughout the country. ireland? you want to talk about it in? >> i mean it looks like those two guys are going to trial in july. >> for what? >> the expectation is that the sentencing will be minimal to nothing. >> and i want to ask the group one more question. you address how the terrorism moniker has been used against

animal rights and activists. we're starting to see more and more -- it's obvious to me at least that they want to do that with the anons, with the hackers. the cyber crimes unit, and they're saying in much the same way that 10 or so years ago they said that environmental, ecological terrorists are the number one domestic threat, and now they're talking cyber terrorism. that is the new word they are getting him on. -- getting amped on. i would like to hear people's perspective on how is that creeping in and how do you see that affecting the future of the activists online world? >> and i think that is the future of where this all is heading. part of the reason we focus so much on this in my work is the potential for these tactics

being easily applied to a wide range of other social movements. government repression is certainly nothing new to any radical movement but the specific tools and how they're being used in my opinion were really pioneered against animal rights activists because they were seen as so marginalized, easy to break off into targets. moving forward, some of the other movements, things to look out for are not only how this rhetoric is being used in the press, because that's how the foundation is really laid, but how is begins to creep into legal proceedings, whether or not people are actually charged under a terrorism enhansment. it's ways of injecting that language as much as possible. then a dramatic shift happens which i would anticipate in the next couple years with groups like anonymous, specifically targeting people

because of their politics and activism. like the animal terrorism act, grainne talked about how legislation is already being used and misused as a way to go after internet activists. there is no doubt going to be new legislation coming down the pike targeting that brand of organization the when you have organization.of when you have that line of foundation, people are being smeared outside in the press, pushing the limits of existing laws in the courtroom and when new laws are being drafted, that's when really the full weight of these apparatus are coming down on these movements. we're seeing a lot of the elements escalate very quickly with all thief heard about. >> yeah, it's interesting with anonymous. do you remember the photo of the polish parliamentarians do donning that mask? a few weeks later there was a wall street journal with a

headline claiming that anonymous is going to have the capability to take down the power grid in a couple years. i was not surprised about the timing of it because when the polish parliamentarians were using the mask, it's clear the mask became a symbol for popular discontent and unrest, not terrorism, right? and it just felt like propaganda of some sort. and the story didn't stick. you know, everyone, subsequent news reports discounted it. they were like come on, why would anonymous want to take down the very thing that allows them to organize? [laughter] it's like so ridiculous, right? and their m.o. is not about endangering lives at all. it just points to the fact that again, they're often misunderstood. there's a handful of news reports that call them terrorists but in some ways they kind of have won the media relations battle. that's one of the reasons why

the legal part has to be very effective as a way to scare the heck out of them against moving forward. i still think the hammer would be strong. the history of the computer fraud and abuse act is one in which it's just become stronger and stronger with each passing year because they've amended the bill many, many times. but it does point to the fact, and that's what i really liked about will's presentation, is that people are outraged. they see the benefits of these different movements, and people are seeing the benefits of them and the media is not delegitimizing them in the ways that they often do. that's going to really freak out government officials and corporations and we have to really watch out because they're going to be really crafty in their response, given the fact that these movements are accessible to some degree.

>> i think one of the other things we saw, after aaron schwarz died there were calls all throughout the internet to reform the cfa. and they were talking about reducing the charges. what had been proposed right up to his death was to sort of double all the charges. so if you did the same thing you would get twice as long. right now there's a $500 -- you have to be accused of $500 worth of damage. they wanted to lower that to $200. so there were all these like reform maneuvers in the works that were going to make it an even worse law. so when he died and there were all these calls for reform, everyone was saying reform it, make it a better law, and what came out of that was making it actually a worse law. i think it was kind of disheartening to watch and also

sort of predictable that that's what lawmakers were going to return with. i think will is right and will's knowledge of sort of prior movements and precursors to this is really i will ut traitive -- illustrative to people watching the cfa. >> we're going to open up to questions. because we don't have audio in here, you have to wait until it's your turn and speak into the microphone. >> i'm part of a group that supports all these activists and i want to encourage people to go to the websites of these activists and contribute to their restitution funds and legal funds. jeremy's twin brother has a -- he's asking the judge to basically ask to say time served instead of giving him 10 years. write to her, ask people to let these people go. this is really not ok. these are people who are doing

this for you. write to them. they're really -- jeremy has over like 80 days of confinement. no family visitation for a year. months and months of no phone calls. he was sick. brown was going through withdrawal of heroine and not given anything. the one who is actually appealing the cfa, he's not a hacker but a notorious patrol on line so no one likes him. >> ok. >> there's a lot of cases going on. >> i want to say just support activists. >> thank you. thank you.

>> jeremy's website is freejeremy.net. >> thanks to prism we know that the fbi, etc., had access to everything about manning. as his attorney, do you have a right to ask how much, what data, not just that they used, but all of the data that they perused to pick exactly what they wanted? as his attorney, shouldn't you have that right? >> you definitely should. the discovery rules in the southern district are not what you would wish they were, so as an attorney you try to get more information and that's part of your job is to litigate for that. and so hopefully, is all i'll say to that. >> a really interesting example from my work on this topic real fast is that in 2005 there ways group of environmentalists facing

multiple life sentences for property destruction and like this case the government was really turning the screws and threatening them and they were refusing to take any plea agreement, a handful of the activists were -- and the defense filed a motion for any surveillance used in this and the judge agreed. wow, that was amazing. if this happened it could throw out entire prosecutions. what happened is the prosecution had an amazing change of heart and they agreed to them take the plea agreements without snitching on their friends in order to quash that going forward. i have a very strong suspicion that surveillance is working its way into a lot of court

cases and there is a lot of pressure on the government to make sure the extent of that isn't released. >> i had a question about prosecute -- prosecutions of folks convicted of cyber terrorism in the future. you talk about like, anonymous taking out the power grirksd which was a silly idea. but then you have israel and the u.s. government working on this together and information technology is notoriously insecure. what do you think about the possibilities. of finding the space to defend against the sort of cracking down on the cases we want while there's real cases that are probably not going to be fun that start to happen in the future? >> i mean i think it's important, you know, one of the messages as activists to get across is yeah, we need good security for

these infrastructures. you know what i mean? and try to shift the message to that as opposed to look at these hackers causing this damage. no. if corporations aren't held accountable for their infrastructure or the public works projects, right, then there's going to be real damage at some level. and it does seem like the conversation does acknowledge that as well and there has been a more robust discussion and thanks in part to anonymous, that 50-day hacking spree, a lot of hackers in the infosec community who tend to work for corporations and governments to create secure systems were thrilled at losec because oftentimes corporations aren't putting in the money needed to create secure systems, which is important for public safety and consumers. so the more we could make that the conversation as opposed to, you know, the hackers doing crazy things, i think you know, it's better for the public.

>> one of the really interesting things about the cfaa is that -- so if you have counseled -- found to have violated the c.f.a.a., the damage requirement is $500. how that can be calculated can is by incorporating the amount of money it took the company to securities systems. so they leave a door wide open, someone gets information, and then they're hiring of an i.t. guy to fix it goes into your damages and you are responsible for paying for that i.t. guy to -- when the i.t. guy should have been hired by the company if they're going to put their stuff on line. the internet is new and everyone is using it for everything and people are not investing in -- it's not like bridge building where there's engineering practices in the same ways.

it's a lot more kind of like -- it's a lot more loose and standards are not tight and they're not followed. industry-wide standards. it's just kind of where we are right now is that a lot of systems are really insecure. drawing atwention -- attention to that, as people who are give -- giving our credit cards to these companies, that's the problem, we're trusting them with this and they're not really trustworthy with our data. >> to answer your question, we have these laws that are fully capable of going after the real bad guys, but what we're doing is discouraging actual people who are not the real bad guys from even -- the wii case is a perfect example. it was a completely negligently built system by at&t that any person could enter any number and get real data back. instead of course creating a new one, they say no, we're going to go after the guy that exposed it.

that's the dynamic we see over and over again and that's a political question because the prosecutor literally, professor kerr said that any internet user could be targeted for a c.f.a.a. violation if the prosecutors chose to. so that's a political decision. >> hi, i was just wondering if you could plain just what kind of legal jargon is being used in the steubenville -- the anon that exposed the steubenville rapist. i'm confused as to how -- these kids were tweeting about it the entire time, but the an nonwas bringing more attention to what the kids were already doing and i'm confused how the state can say what anon did was illegal when they were already documenting the activity themselves.

>> no, that's a really good question. the most effective part of the anonymous campaign was locating videos and tweets that had been erased. but since they are are -- had been catched -- carbed they were found and circulated. people felt there wasn't going to be a fair trial because there was such support for the football team. there was one hack that happened with the football team mailing list and email accounts. so that is where the c.f.a. really enters the picture. there was a kind of hack that was involved. and i don't know actually if this hack led to accessing the videos and tweeds -- tweets. i actually don't think it was. a lot of the stuff was gotten from facebook and private accounts. but there was a hack in that case.

>> one of the things i found really interesting is like in -- at the same time this rhetoric about oh, no, the cyber, cyber, cyber threat is, there's also been this -- cyber cyber! there's also been appropriation and embracing of hacker culture by big government and what i consider like the worst aspect of start-up culture. and i'm curious like how that can be both -- like if you could talk a little bit about how that could be made more helpful? what i worry about is it sort of becomes a smoke screen. >> you're talking about the national dave hacking and stuff like that? >> yeah. it's totally iron. wasn't it the weekend of national civic hacking day? >> yeah, i can speak to that.

so on the one hand there's two different issues you can talk about. one is the white house government has embraced hacking as a moniker for some move to open up data in the government and apparently from what i've heard, getting that term, hacking, approved was laborious and difficult, as you can imagine. on the one hand i think it's actually like a positive move, right? just because hacking is just so seen as so nefarious. you say "hacker" and people think about that hooded guy who's at a keyboard and why someone would have a full sky mask while on a key poord, i don't know because you're indoors, there's probably heat. but it's a perfect moment to

call the government out and go, look, on the one hand, great, you're opening up -- opening up data. but the best hacking has to offer is both civil disobedience as well as fully legal stuff as well so it's a good opportunity to intervene in that moment. the other side of that is that some companies also hold, like, hackathons where they are opening it up to the public and basically exploiting free labor and it's a kind of gentrification going on. in that case it's also really good to kind of expose what's going on as well. recently there was a great web site that did it. >> it was national day of hacking .info.

in new orleans they had a hack the murder rate campaign which, you know, as someone that's lived in new orleans it's a little bit offensive that software he will -- development could really affect the enormous social structures that are leading to a high murder rate, lack of a good education system and health care and mental health care and things like that, but a bunch of people with laptops were going to come in and solve those problems was very offensive. so someone made a satirical site about this. >> and as someone who studies hackers, on the one hand, i think they're a really valuable contribution to politics. on the other hand there say trend in silicon valley, who one man calls the technological solution, we're not going to turn to the government for services, technology will solve the problem. sometimes some of these hackathons feed into that and it is very problem at lick and good to call it out. >> sort of like a charity complex. >> i think something all social movements face when they start coming into their owns. look at the civil rights move

metropolitan. monies and millions spent on this monument by mcdonald's and burger king. or these undercover investigations with corporations saying everything is humane and cage- free, these words don't mean anything. as these movements grow there is this effort to sanitize them and make them something that can be looked at by startups or monsanto or cargill as being humane. >> this is a question more for will but i'm sure anybody else would have good feedback on it. there was a really great panel here about environmental genocide and there was a dr. walter hsu who was talking about physicians having to sign these nondisclosure agreements if their patients were being slowly killed by things that were, you know, because of fracking and it was gag laws very similar to what were -- you were talking about.

i just wanted to ask as far as the types of people making these slegses, as far as the laws and i know that they may seem very different on the surface, as far as different industries like food, agriculture, public health and medicine, do you find a lot of overlap with the types of legislation and the types of people make the legislation? is it sort of cut from the same cloth as far as these gag laws? >> absolutely. and we're seeing some direct overlap right now. the focus on ag-gag has really been a focus by necessity by the industry because they're under such attack but we're seeing similar rhetoric and legal battles showing up with animal experimentation.

universities across the country are trying to show that they're exempt from the freedom of information act using the same rhetoric. but more importantly, a lot of the politicians who are beholden to biging a -- bigag are also beholden to the pharmaceutical industry. this is how our political structure works, right? but there are handfuls of people who are sort of vanguard in corporate interests. that's where a lot of this starts. then it gets bipartisan support and branches out as well. >> thank you. so the short version of my very is how much of this is the media's fault? the long version is, i'm someone who has done advocacy projects and i am a member of the media. i am still struggle with the legal jargon and unpacking the sub texts for people to differentiate what we did versus

property destruction. i'm wondering if there is any sort of road map for people who want to do this right and also as a journalist to better protect the people who are brave and do speak out to me. >> no, those are great questions. it is extremely daunting. the kind of technical jargon and details and complexities, they really do matter. they matter for the legal cases, they matter for reporting, and it's certainly the case groups like ward and slate who have dedicated tech reporters usually get it all right, you know, because that's what they're working on. but obviously even in extremely well-respected newspapers, journalists move from topic to topic, an it's very difficult to, you know, get all the information. i would just say reaching, you know, one really good source and this has been very interesting, is that there's been actually an explosion of staff technologists at organizations like the

eff and aclu and you can contact them and they can kind of give you information. and they are happy, they do talk to reporters. i know the staff technologists at one nonprofit, i won't name his name, has educated so many reporters at the wall street journal and "new york times." that's one really important he will em. i will say just on the media's role, i mean it's a complicated topic when you're looking at all these different issues from manning to anonymous to the ag- gag rules, but i to think that they were so complicit with the bradley manning case where bradley manning was kind of portrayed as not really politically grown. you know what i mean? someone who is immature and confused about his sexuality. and it was really damageing to his case. it wasn't until it kinds of -- kind of relates to the animal liberation stuff, you know, when we finally heard his voice at

some level, the media dramatically shifted. like oh, wow, he's really intelligent. he's really doing this for political reasons. right? and i don't know how to hole the media accountable but they definitely have a huge role in framing the issues. >> one of the things that comes to mind is that this is the same problem that lawyers face. a lot of lawyers who are great defense attorneys really have no idea about any of this technology. so there is a learning curve for everyone. it's important to recognize that and we're operating in a new regime here. the other is i just wanted to bring up, i think yes, it's partly the media's fault. yesterday in the new york "times" we had all this n.s.a. expose stuff and the article on the

front page was that the obama administration says that one time this nsa spying was really helpful. i mean that's the arm. it's unbelievable. so i think that, yeah, a lot of the corporate media, he showed his graph where the media is now owned by five companies. maybe it's two now! and i think they're responsible for a lot of this mischaracterization. things that come up in these cases, that people are stealing data an stealing, you know, legally has an intent to deprive. when you are copying information, there is no intent to deprive the owner of it. these are gray areas, nuances, they're subtle and complicated but that's where we are now. you know, is this the same as taking your laptop and not letting you have it?

no. i think the subtlety is important and i think the media is generally missing it, and missing it in favor of kind of corporations and the government. >> or they only report on it for two weeks and you know, then, an opportunity is lost. that's wa -- what i'm afraid is going to happen ant -- on the violence -- surveillance stuff. it needs to be reported for at least like two months. and there say strong box, i think that's what it's called. something aaron schwarz was working on prior to his death and it's a tool for sources to -- >> sort of like wiki leaks. where you are secure in giving your information. >> right. i would still do research on it. i don't want to say it's fullly

secure. that's one of the problems with encryption. it's still in early stages. >> i think it's really important though that they -- we not cede any ground to this idea that the main stream press or journalism across the board being that sunken ship. there are systemic changes in journalism. entire magazines and newspapers are being shut down. 30 years ago you had multiple newspapers in one town. now you have wire services fade fiding cookie cutter. -- feeding cookie cutter. but as the lone journalist on the panel, we're not all bad. you go into this because you want to be, like, you want to stir things up, to educate and expose. people are stuck in this structure and trying to navigate it just as we're trying to naivegate it on the outside looking in. i think it's extremely frustrating but there's also a lot of potential. the ag-gag case was a good example of that, that we can't understatement the willingness or power of main stream press to get on board with this. in some cases it's due to ignorance. in other cases they may just need a little prodding or assistance.

>> no, definitely. there's a good lesson for anonymous. they should think about their media strategy. anonymous doesn't think approximate it and this works but that's because they're so good at imagery and have an internally built system for mystery. it helps. but think about your strategy as one in which you can appeal to the best and worst of the media structurally while that still matters. >> it's called a dead drop, by the way. not a strong box. >> it's a variance. >> it's another one. >> to what extent would it be useful to make sure that all state and as well local legislatures have all of their legislation as it's introduced become available instantly or whatever digitally including when it's been changed through the process so you could find out.

there are enough people on the interest in, -- internet, you know, oh, here is alec, something like that. what is the possibility of something like that? >> i think just as a working reporter i would really appreciate that. it would make my job a lot easier in some senses. but we need to remember there is an inherent eliteism to that. maybe that's the wrong word. i don't know. but there's a very small amount of people that are willing to do that type of reading. but they exist and are very b.ut they exist and are very important. so i would kind of counter -- those people are going to be willing to search out that information and we should make it easier and we have a right to public information but the real challenge is taking that a couple steps forward and making people care.

is it did it strikes me with all the prison stuff the last couple days, i have heard so many seem and seen so many people on line say great, i'm not surprised by this. well, then you shouldn't care or fight about it. people know with this ag-gag stuff and labeling activists as terrorists, i've never once met anyone who was shocked by it, never at any speaking event, which is telling me how little faith people have in the political system right now. the question is how to tap into that and mobilize that. >> a few more questions? >> is there some bill or law that you all support that would help you that we could get behind? >> i don't have any. >> yeah, i think it's -- how do i phrase this tactfully? i would put much more my faith in horizontal methods of organizing outside the political structures. if those systems are powerful enough the political structure

will reflect that out of necessity rather than looking to people in power to help us. >> will we fight back? >> hire me. >> right. >> ok. i just wanted to -- can you hear me? i just wanted to make -- go off what you were saying about elitism. i know this is probably obvious but i haven't heard it discussed in this room. there aren't many -- that many people willing to sit down and do the cross referencing. there are also people that don't have access to the internet and don't think about this as a tool for disseminating it. i have been thinking about my mexican parents who are wonderful, crit -- critical intelligent people who have zero access to any of the tools we are talking about, so i wanted to

point that out in terms of how we think did -- about disseminating information and how we ensure that we don't just talk to each other part -- particularly because this is my just, like, racial analysis and i'm sure you have probably heard it before but the only reason people are able to go after like ecological terrorists and information hackers is because they've been separated from an aggregate of humanity. they are something different, something exceptional. the same ways in which they're being separated, targeted, prosecuted and rendered invisible through prisons are the exact same ways you mentioned earlier, in that folks who look like me are being silenced and being threatened and put into prisons. we need to think about how to transfer those sort of like highly technological tools to different cultural contacts and ways that can be used throughout the broader movement the >> i think that's a great

reminder of when you are in vimpletse like this, away from facebook, away from discussion forums. how about everyone before you leave today, just introduce yourself to one or two other people in the room in i grew up in the catholic church and that's one thing i remember. father beaumont always made us introduceure -- ourselves to the people around us. helps to remind us to engage people in real ways. >> it allows you to not be dehumanized to -- by other people if you are constantly making connections with other people. >> and i see the beginning of natural coalitions starting here. >> it allows you to not be dehumanized to -- by other people if you are constantly making connections with other people. >> and i see the beginning of natural coalitions starting here.

when you look at the terrorism framework. we all know terrorism means muslims, right? so it's like shocking that he's it's these nice white people and they're terrorists. that is an entree into a whole new dialogue of what does it mean to be a terrorist and the actual political motivations and the underpinnings of that as -- as a term and the tactics. and the war on drugs, we all know that's a war on black people, on brawn -- brown people, right? but the tactics are now being brought to other political enemies. so it's a natural way to expand the coalition and expand the issues through these kind of cutting incidental activists movements to bring in the broader solutions. >> it's interesting as an trillion popp -- anthropologist that there's this big tension that people are made by culture and different experiences and this idea that universality has its limits, yet on the other hand there's clearly all sorts of

ways in which people have common experiences, life, death, sickness, or ways a society treats its prisoners. so i think we often have to leverage what particular groups can provide in such a way that then is always, always, always mindful of coalitions be translations, and connections at the same time. the final thing i will say though is that i do think, you know, technology, programming, technical knowledge will pacific particularly important for political interventions and it's so skewed along gender lines that it's astounding. then when you look further at mine -- minorities as well, it

becomes even more skewed. it has to be addressed at the kind of primary and secondary school in order to remedy it. and there are really good initiatives doing this but if that doesn't happen both the economic and political landscape is going to be heavily, heavyly skewed toward males. >> i think we're out of time here but -- [applause] >> buy will's book. >> and hers. >> hey, how you doing? >> good work, guys. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> tomorrow night, part of the from san conference jose, california. it begins with a discussion about the challenges that women

political candidates face. then, political candidates caught on tape. needs a strong partner, an honest partner more than the american president, sheltered and cocooned. that is what i concluded after five years and hundreds of interviews. , willing tonts speak sometimes hard truths that otherwise others are unwilling to speak. a distinct advantage. let me give you an example. cutpat nixon been able to through her husband's paranoia, watergate might have been avoided. she had long given up on her husband by the time they deleted the white house. they were leading virtually separate lives.

i don't give my husband advised, she said, because he doesn't need it. is there a man or woman alive that does not need advice from the person that knows him or her best? >> as we continue our we look atn, marriage and the presidency. >> >> dan cote, the honeywell ceo, set down with john bussy. this is an hour. welcome, everyone. this is a delight to be able to speak with dave cote. we are going to cover a number of topics today.

everything from honeywell to the debt. and the riskiness of being on risk committees. is a largery, there topic maybe to address first, which is that honeywell is ion n more than 100 countries. it is the diverse conglomerate. it has everything from missions control to avionic to protective clothing. i would imagine you are able to give us a better read up on the economy at this stage of the game than the imf. can you give us a sense of what is happening out there? what is the state of affairs? where is growth likely to come from? >> right now my view, not much is happening at all. i was talking with bob earlier, and we were comparing notes. i hope ben bernanke is right. i don't feel that way yet.

i am not an economist, not a forecaster, so i have to do with what is happening now. it's shifted sideways overall. whenever you look at orders trends. i got back from two weeks in asia. going to india, china, myanmar, other than japan where you start to feel enthusiasm that i had not felt for the previous 50 years, the rest of it seems sideways overall. when it comes to where where do i think the growth is going to come from long-term, there is this major shift that is going on. you see a lot of people writing about it, but i think the statistics pointed out even more though than we think sometimes. this is usda economic data. it is global insights. world gdp over the next 20

years, the u.s. declined from 26% to 22. other developed regions declined from 46% down to 24%. at high- you look growth regions, brazil, mexico, china, india, russia, it goes from 29% to 47% over the next 20 years. my numbers are not perfect. so any of you -- i know you're all financially conversant. wait, that doesn't add to 100. it doesn't. i know that up front. that's the world's first big problem. but it's directionally correct. i could provide you with the real numbers at some point. but that's a real change. it started about ten years ago. you could see the curve starting to change. that's where we're going to have go for broke. right now, you have to go to the high growth regions if you're going to grow your company. >> if you put numbers on it, what's the u.s. economy -- what are you planning for. you and your finance guys sitting down, what you planning

for for growth next year. asia? >> i'm for being on the conservative side when it comes to economic or sales forecasting because it just causes you put your costs in a better position and it's easier to add than it is to take out, generally. the way we're looking at the u.s., the next three years, 2% economy. europe is the 3% company. >> next three years, 2% economy? >> the next three years. europe is 0. and india is around 4 and china is in the 6 to 7 range. that's just the way we're going to plan the company. as i was saying earlier, i hope i'm wrong. i'd like to pick the scenario where there's an 80% chance it will be that or better. but i'm a little fearful that we might be right, given the way that i can't recall many forecasts over the last two or three years where they've said, gee, for this time of year, we were hell of a lot better than we expected. >> 4% and 6% sound good for india and china.

but those are very low numbers. >> compared to where they were, yeah, much longer. >> in the case of china, are you investigating china? >> oh, sure. >> you're going to increase it there? >> i look at -- the way i look at china is there's kind of a short term and a long term phenomenon that we have to deal with. in the short term, they have to go through a lot of turmoil, a lot of economic turmoil. they're going to -- they've got to get ahold of their bank, the s.o.e.s, they've got to change to a more consumption-based economy. there's a lot of change they have to go through. but while it may be a little painful and we saw some of that pain ourselves in the first quarter as you can see the s.o.e.'s being clamped down on so order trends really fell off of a cliff. at the end of the day, china's shown a real ability to evolve as a country. we're big believers. we talk about it a lot, the need to evolve. a person, an organization, a country, you have to be able to

evolve. if you're not changing every year, and externally is changing every say 4%. at the end of ten years, you have 50% change and that's a revolution. off need to be able to keep evolving. they've shown an ability to do that. and i've said many groups a lot of people want to compare china with japan evolution. and i don't think that's the right parallel. and the way we're looking at it is the way that the u.s. looks at china is several years ago the uk looked at the u.s. that's a better parallel. we had a lot more people, a dynamic. how we celebrated business. what it did for productivity problems. we had i.p. problems, we were stealing i.p. then. over the course of 150 years, we

had a couple of world wars they had to deal with. at the end of the day, the trend was the same. we take a look at china, there's four times the number of people we do. they can grow 7% to our 3% to our 25 to 30 years before the economy is the same sites. which means the gdp per capita is lower than ours. which is they can go for a long time growing at that kind of rate. there is a chance they totally messed it up. there's another things they need to get through. our growth is not bad. we don't think we should ever be bringing them up short on any of this or thinking they're not capable of doing it.

i say if we go 50 to 70 years in the future. i try not to be that futuristic with our open company. but i think it's 50 to 70 years from now, that could be the story that everybody is writing. that's why we spend a lot of time getting back to your investment point, we spend a lot of time on what we call becoming the chinese competitors. you have to be able to beat your local chinese competitor in china. because if you can't beat them there, you'll face them in western europe or in the u.s. i'd say for almost every single business out there, the next big global competitor, my view, is more likely to come from china than any place else. >> you're doing a lot of sophisticated manufacturing or operations in china, including avionics. how have you dealt with the issue of technology transfer, can which is a nice way of saying -- >> yeah. >> if you -- if it's not true -- >> if it's not through cybersecurity problems, it's true the requirement of the chinese place, the big companies

coming into the market that, hey, you can joint venture, sure. but you've got transfer tech noling into the joint venture that we find of value. and then it gets potentially ripped off. so how have -- how has honeywell with the very sensitive high-tech operations, how have you dealt with that. >> the second point that you make about the requirement to add technology in the country that we're doing something, that's not a new thing that china is doing. every developing country always does that. that's just one of the things that you deal with. getting back to this becoming the chinese competitor -- we set up a standard, every single business, by business, where do you need to get to. we go through and participate and talk with them about. if it's a business that has a lot of proprietary technology associated with it, if you think about what we plug ulp, processes for refineries or aerospace, we're extremely

careful what we develop in the country. if we're going to manufacture in the country, we're extremely careful about what we're going to do there versus some place else and send in. but i'd say we put a lot of thought into what we're willing to do that. now, there's a nice change that's going to be coming. i had -- i met with the premier li a couple of weeks ago in china and raised the issue of intellectual property and asked, where does it stand? it's an issue for a all of us. you want to see the best in the country. where does it stand? how are you looking at it. i took it as a really interesting perspective. the answer was, we are going to be doing more on that. we recognize it's important for our economy. however, we're not doing it because any foreign country tells us to do it. in other words, you, dave. but we want to make sure that the people who develop the technology in the country can be

protected. i think an evolution is going to occur in china. they get it. they haven't taken this seriously as they could have. in the past, everybody -- everybody knows that who's had any dealings there. but i do think it's going to be part of the revolution. >> yeah, we might be holding our breath for a little while. >> i'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow. but it's coming. we had a conference of cfos, chief financial officers down there. later on in the conference, the sheet last year, and that was in the middle of the european crisis last summer. how about now? are you holding more cash the same or less? things have gotten a little better in the world. things have gotten better to

settle down in europe. and yet, nearly half of the cfos said they're holding more cash on the balance sheets. almost a third of them said they're holding the same. now, does that reflect some of the uncertainty that you're describing in the growth numbers. is it just global growth they're uncertain about or is it washington they're uncertain about? >> if you're looking for something to be uncertain about, there's a number of things you can pick out there. there's a -- that uncertainty, whether it's what's going on globally, what europe is doing, the places around the world, syria, iran, north korea that could blow a political embolism we see in our own country. you want to be uncertain, there's a lot of stuff to be able to pick right now. and it's interesting that before the great recession, i used to say that once you invested in your business, you had three uses of cash, dividends, repurchases, or acquisition. now down to a fourth one which

says, well, you can just have more cash on the balance sheet. i don't want it to grow to apple's proportions, but i sure don't mind given the experience we had in 2008 and 2009, i don't know if it's always so bad to have that kind of reserve on your balance sheet. that's kind of how i find myself looking at it. >> let's get to the embolism part. >> i thought you'd like that one. >> sort of in addition to leading honeywell over the last decade and it's been on the wall. top profits and sales, way up. >> happy you noticed, john. >> you've taken a little time off to -- to work down in washington to co-lead this group of ceos in this campaign called "fix the debt." you have heavily involved in that late last year. i'm wondering if you -- you called it a revelation on the dysfunction in washington. wondering if you could elaborate on that from a businessman's

perspective. we kind of read it from a journalistic standpoint. but from a business person's perspective, tell us what was revalatory? >> i knew it was different in business. i had no idea how different until you get in there and see it's being made. man, it's really different. and the more i had a chance to think about it more than i used to in the past given my participation. and the way i found myself thinking about it was that with government, you want sustainability. and trusted institutions. those are the big things that you want. for that, you're willing to sacrifice a lot of efficiency, for that sustainability. and government efficiency seems to be the ultimate oxymoron we all deal with. you don't do it with what you have to deal with. people work very hard, but it's slim.

i started to view it as part of the price you pay for sustainability. you can be sure you have government institution us and 100 years from now, certainly government is still going to be here. business is very different. there, we want efficiency, because we want productivity which leads to standard of living and prosperity for everybody which means the need to be more risk taking and the risk of bankruptcy if you make a mistake, the opportunity for grand plans if you get it really right. you're willing to make that trade now because that's where you ged the standard of living. the mistake we make is when we start to think they're the same. why can't government act like business? or, if you're in a public company and you find people say, well, gee, it's -- businesses should be run like a democracy. you have share owners who vote. and you ought to defuse power. and so that bad things don't happen. well, then you're giving up the efficiency that you want out of the private sector in the first

place. one of the ways i've taken to trying to describe the whole thing, which annoys people sometimes. growing up in new hampshire and being a ceo, i always felt like what ile thought -- what i said, what i did, all had to be the same thing. if you're in government, that's three separate decisions. right? i mean, you think about it. what they say isn't necessarily what they think. what they do is not necessarily what they say or think. it's a -- there's a complexity to what they're doing that i don't have to deal with. you watch it sometimes. i can remember meeting with paul once and him telling me, you know, i'm with you, dave. i thought, great. walked out, talking to my guy, i said, look, what a great meeting. he said, no, bob, we're in trouble. i said what do you mean? he's not with us. i know he said that, that's not what he means. this is what he means.

oh, i got a little more warning to do here. it's very different and much more difficult to get something done. 536 independent contractors. come to honeywell, i can generally make most decisions. there you have 536 independent contractors. >> when you walked in the door, you were talking with president obama. you were talking with people on the hill. dave camp, bachus. you are a -- you're a chief representative of the business community, ceo magazine. ceo of the year. so you have standing from the business community. do you feel that it made any -- did you feel that it made any difference or were you just kind of one more voice that was not going b to be heard? >> i'd say probably the thing that made the biggest difference over time in terms of building credibility with both sides of the aisle is my participation on

the simpson bowles commission. that probably did it more than anything else. because you're going through that crucible of a process, you end up building a lot of relationships. and it -- i would say the understanding of how a business works generally and how decisions get made and what's happening, i think there were few of those guys that know, most of them don't. so it's more just based on who do you know and how do you know them. and the simpson bowles process was good for doing that. because i had to get very involved. i was spending about a full day a week on doing this stuff. i was the only guy other than eres kin bowles and alan simpson to attend every single meeting that we ever had, from start to finish. so i took it pretty seriously thinking if we're trying to -- if we've got a serious problem, we've got to attack it seriously. that had a lot of credibility on both sides they realize -- it's funny.

you walk in with the title ceo, you're immediately branded on how you are. so you spend a number of months. by the way, some of the same things happened with me that you have to go by what the media is written and then you find out they're different from what's been written. there's the process you go through. you do that for seven or eight months, you build pretty good relationships overall. >> so you got heard. but we're still no further along in the process than we were a year ago, are we? >> i wouldn't say it's true. >> if this was, again, a business -- if this government acted more like business, we would have stood there and looked at this thing and you would see all of the numbers and go, oh, my god, we have to take out somewhere between $6 trillion and $7 trillion over the next, say, 15 years if we're going to have a shot at having a fiscally responsible enterprise.

one of my big accomplishments on the committee is getting at least $4 trillion. because a lot of people wanted it to be less than that because of the doability factor. as you start to look at the $4 trillion, you say, okay, it didn't work exactly as it would have liked in the business problem. you would have come up with a decision at that point. somebody would have made a decision. you say, okay, we'll go forward and do that. what you didn't see is 0% raises that were given to federal employees for three years. an outcome of that, save some money. that -- the whole debt ceiling debacle that we went through, okay, painful as it was, it was a call for that. the sequester. some say it's a silly way of doing it. tough to disagree with that. the tax increase that didn't happen at the end oh it was year, anemic by business

standards in terms of what should be done and ridiculous in terms of process, it did take another step. so there's a kind of a -- it doesn't happen the way we like it to in the business community. but it is happening. and it's one of the reasons why we can't let up. and this is where the business community can play a big role. right now people are down there saying, well, we don't seem to be hearing about it. the business community doesn't seem to be speaking up the way it used to. deficits down to $608 billion. we're doing well now. we need to keep speaking up. because they had to feel the intense tip and they had to feel it relentlessly. >> and dave camp said in your commission the head of the negotiations, the head of the house ways and means committee. forget about taxes. it's not going to happen.

you heard the same thing on the spending side as well. the positions on both sides, raising revenue to consulting spending. but you're saying that's not the case. that slowly this is eroding? >> i would say -- remember my learning on the three things, what they say is not necessarily what they think or what they're willing to do. there's -- it's one thing i ended up learning -- there's really smart well meaning people down there. now there are some, dealing with some of them. i've had times where i looked at someone and said you can't possibly believe what you just said. you just can't. it's so illogical, you can't. but there are some of those. but i would say i've run into a lot of people who are very bright and really want to do the right thing. now, i'd logically might have different views about it.

but at the end of the day, they're smart enough to know, okay, at some point, we have a problem and it requires compromise. so i'm not ready to give up based on what people say they're not willing to do. at this stage of the game, until there's a deal, something they can start talking about, that's a safe place for them to be. why keep everybody -- i saw this happen on the simpson bowles commission, we had the left-leaning orangeses come out against it because we recommended an increase of one year in age eligibility for social security recipients, 75 years in the future. and they started with the howard trying to steal social security. i said, gee, you got to be kidding. 75 years? my grandchildren will be retired by then. there's no effect here. they don't want to stir all of that up until they have to. >> is there a possibility of a grand bargain or has it instead become kind of going from

chaotic moment after chaotic moment, a sequester after another sequester where slowly but surely, it hacks away at the deficit. >> you don't want to exclude the possibility that grand bargain is possibility. the highest probability outcome is we lurch from crisis to crisis. that's the way the place seems to work. it's unpleasant. but i'd say there's a good chance this happens. this problem is very real. people writing now for example and going, wait a minute, if we look at the latest ceo estimate, debt to gdp gets to 75%, which, by the way, we thought was a horrific number and for all of the people who complained about the reagan years, it got to 40% then. now we're at 75. grows to 83 by the end of this decade. some say, okay, that's still manageable. you get to the next decade, you

get 100 to 135%. that's no recessions. if you look at the ceo -- no one assumes recessions. in the course of the next 20 years, you'll have two more recessions, maybe three. if you don't factor that in, you get 100%, 135% of gdp largely because the baby-boomer generation is retiring and the medical care costs are going to crush the system. we can't afford it. now, if we wait until then to make those changes, if you want to talk about civil loan unrest, you're going to get it then. the time for change is now. people can prepare. most of us will understand the program until they're in it. they won't even know that something is not there anymore. the right time to make the changes is now. they're willing to do something. and in the end of the day, the deal has to be retirement reform in exchange nor a tax increase.

i mean, it's pretty obvious. it's another one of those things that shows my naivete when we started with erskin bowles and i'd say, no way to do a reform unless there's tax increase. and the republicans say we're not doing a tax increase unless there's an entitlement reform. as a businessman you're going, gee, this is pretty logical. son of a gun, this thing is going to work. here we sit. so is it a deal along the lines that you're describing a likely outcome. or does the bond market intervene and create the crisis environment that you're describing that causes a lurch towards a revolution. what's the outcome at this stage? >> oh, it's tough to know. because as you guys know better than i do, bond markets are

unpredictable. it's interesting, again, to show the difference between business and politics. we have these conversations, we need to do this thoughtfully, proactively the way a great country does. they say what happened? you know, ten-year notes go to 7%. home mortgage is a ten and auto loan is a 13. well, now you're going to have a main street problem and you're going to feel it. their question would be, well, when does that happen? do you have an idea of what corner, what year that happens. well, they'll say nobody knowles. all i can tell you is it's not going to go up a basis point a week and you can draw the line and say, ah, shoot, this is where the crisis happens. it's just going to happen. that risk is always there. if you look at the debt accumulation, ten years from now, we'll be close to spending $1 trillion a year in interest.

just in interest. $1 trillion a year. now, i've taken it to describing it this way, because we all deal with millions and billions pretty effectively and all the time. but to put a trillion in perspective, if you had spend $1 million per day since jesus christ was born, 2013 -- almost 2013 years ago, you still would not have spent $1 trillion. that will have been our annual interest bills. you get to those numbers, you're going to panic people. who knows what happened in the bond market. i don't think the percent of gdp would be as relevant at that point. the psychology, the animal spirits take over, all of a sudden you are stuck with having to make immediate changes. that's why it's important for the business community to make that kind and get that kind of message across about the significance. >> so the accolades gave you a little bit of cover with

shareholders, i would imagine, being named the ceo a year, having to spend a day a week in washington. that's a lot. running big companies like honeywell, how did you make that understanding with the board of directors and with your big investors that you were going to be spending this much time away from the day job. >> your presumption there is anything got taken away from the day job. i would say the actual fact is i ended up with a hell of a lot less personal time. toolting our own horn, the honeywell commercial, our performance is quite good there. at the end of the day, it's because we didn't take the eye off of the ball. interestingly, when i was first asked to do this, your first reaction for me was i can't afford to do something like this timewise. but i had been complaining about the deficit since the early 2000s, and when medicare part d

got done and it was unfunded and the answer was look, it's only another $50 billion a year on top of the $450 or so deficit i had. oh, man, i'm a lifelong republican and even my own side is going crazy here. i complained about it. given the opportunity to do something, how do i say no? it's clear there's an issue. i sent a note to my board letting them know, look, this is what i would like do. here's why i can promise you i will not in any way -- this will not detract from honeywell. i will take this out of my personal time, if you will. to a person, the board was unbelievably supportive. every one of them said it's clearly a problem. you can have an effect here, you should do this. the board support was it couldn't have worked out better. >> i want to get to the company

for a couple of minutes before we go to questions. but, one other part of your life that might have distracted a little bit from honeywell operations is your position on the risk committee on the board of directors of jp morgan. so you've gone through kind of a meat grinder of experience where shareholders approved not by a wide margin your ape pointment to the board after the process of jp morgan had in the trading desk in london and concerns about risks at the company. i wonder what lessons you could learn having gone through the grinder. >> the whole process didn't bother me that much. i find it interesting how things evolve.

i found a nice vignette to explain what it was like. business week writes a nice article about me and honeywell. at the end of the kay, bloomberg says we'd like to have a retrospective on your life. you had a humble background. power interview, condensed eight minutes, we'll show it on bloomberg. that's really nice. okay, i'll do that. we went to the studios and we had this little green room or something set aside. tv and two producers talking about honeywell is doing great. the story is terrific. looking forward to doing this

retrospective on your life. i'm thinking it's all pretty nice. in the meantime, i notice on the screen behind me is this bloomberg analyst talking about whether or not i should continue as the jp morgan director. so i go to the two guys and said, am i the only ones to notice the irony of all of this. the faces turned red. they said, look, we're not saying it's fair. i did the interview, everything worked out fine. the second kind of learning out of all of this is this is where it was really beneficial to have spent that much time in washington. because i got 59% of the vote. i ended up learning that's a mandate. so i'm in -- i'm in great shape. as long as you're above 50, it's a man date. you're good. so i can't say it bothered me all that much.

>> does it hurt you being able to operate on the board of jp? >> does what? >> the vote? >> i won. >> you did. but the shareholders -- >> i was on the high side of the three of us. >> shareholders signaled their concern about the risk management. >> how are people voting, what are they voting? why? there was the whole ceo thing that was a part of it. a protest vote here and there. who the hell knows, i passed, i'm still there. and we're going to continue and the company is going to do well. >> talk about honeywell for a couple more minutes. you led a renaissance of this company. in trouble when you took it over a little more than a month ago. what did you find that needed to be changed and what are the abiding principles for keeping

that change, that innovation going over that many years. >> anybody familiar with the company's history, as bad as it looked from the outside, it was worse inside. it was like almost everything you touched, $8 billion worth of writeoffs in the previous four years, three cultures, three companies brought together that hadn't been integrated. an empty pipeline of new products. we didn't have a lot to go. globally, 41% of the sales came from outside of the u.s. so there was a lot of stuff that we had -- that we had to add dress. a lot of legacy issues too. we took a three-pronged approach. a three legged school. i refer to it as our business no model. the first we had to address the portfolio. we ran the company based on a couple of factors. good industries and allow you to growth share.

we did $10 billion of acquisitions and $6 billion of dispositions. a total of 125, 130 million transactions and changed the growth profile of the company as a result. the second is the diversity of opportunity where there's no one big thing you can ever point to in the company and say this is what's going to make honeywell over the next five or ten years? but by the same token, nothing goes awry and creates the problem for us. >> the virtues of being a conglomerate. >> i think the sexy word now is multi-industrial. conglomerate just seems kind of old. the first was the portfolio. the second was the focus on internal processes. it's important to make sure the machinery works. when you have 130,000 people, a big part of this is just making

sure that you give all of the people the tools they need every day, better processes, better decision making, the empowerment they need without losing control. just give them a better process to work so that the machinery works. because at the end of the day, as i point out to my whole staff, is that all of us are bureaucrats. we all get our job done through somebody else. they need the tools to work with that. we spend a lot of time focused on culture early on and deciding what kind of company did we want? we had three different company cultures in there. and it was something internally that was referred to as the red versus the blue wars that you had red legacy honeywell, the blue legacy allied and the pitway crew that didn't listen to either one. we had to decide, what culture do we want? and how can we go forward as a company.

and i can remember we were trying to talk about this on our staff, one of the guys were saying why are we fooling around with this when we have all of the strategic issues you can keel with. my comment is i can make all of the strategic decisions that you want. if nobody does any of them, it's not going to matter. we have to agree how to work together and how to get it done. we've done a good job of being able to get things done. a couple of phrases i use a lot. one is the trick is in the doing. also referred to -- there's a big difference between the compliance with words and compliance with intent. if you look at manuals, if they go company to company, it's all the same. we know the same stuff, talk to the same people, read the same books. we all know this stuff. so why is there such a variability between companies. it's because how you actually do it?

how you make sure it happens makes a big difference. but our cultures have gone pretty well that way. diversification doesn't create distractions? the multi-organizational companies, it was hard to kind of keep track of that many diverse industries. diversification trumps that concern? >> it depends on how you diversify. when it comes to that, you know, old word, conglomerate, there are all kinds of conglomerates out there. it's not just in the industrial sector. there's conglomerates in media and financial institutions, everywhere. there's different kinds of businesses within say a particular kind of industry you're going to run into that. if you take a look at what we've done, the business models on how we run the businesses, they aren't all that different.

if you go to the controls business, it's about $17 billion in total. some people look at it and say, wow, that's a lot of different product and a lot of different places. and they'd be right. but if you said, okay, how many actual business models are there, there's only three. one is how do you take your product to market with what we call our distribution businesses. the second one is the one that sells the refineries and pumps and paper mills, kind of big projects. and the third one is multi-brand, multichannel distribution of technology-type projects that business model is the same. it's not like you're going from finance company discussion to an industrial radio onyx discussion. it's the same as it is different. >> let's ask one more question and then we'll go to questions from the audience. your company is doing a lot of

and missions controls. you've got a piece of the action of the shale gas revolution that's under way or developing microdrones. i'm wondering if you can reflect on where the u.s. is in the innovation curve at the moment. a great deal of concern we're not graduating enough engineers. so many more graduating in the chinas and the indias of the world. are we short in innovation in the u.s.? or are we short at the moment on confidence? >> wouldn't say we're short of innovation. if you look at the number of ideas we're able to generate, we have the best system in the world for generating those ideas, enabling the possibility of nose ideas to come to fruition. we still have the best system. we don't give enough credence to the fact that others are moving in our direction and that gap is

going to continue to shorten. i point to india, for example, and it -- the tendency in india is, okay, you can get lower cost engineering, but it's lower quality. it's not as good as what we do. i would say along the software work we do, we do a lot, by the way, india does some of the best software work that we find in the world, including the u.s. and the capability that our guys have there is unbelievable. and you can just take in external standards as a way of measuring software quality in terms of the capability is the computer maturity model index, the mmi, there's a ratings from 1 to 5, five being the best in the world. there's 15 or 20 firms that have a level 5 mmi standard anywhere.

our operation in india has had it for 20 years now. grown from 500 people to 7,000 people, mostly doing software. because even when you look at a company like honeywell, you say, okay, all of your products like avionics, jet gins, controls, materials, turbochargers. that's all stuff that ships in a box. but we have about 22,000 something engineers. more than half are doing software. more than half. everything we ship in a box, software is the predominant technology that we deal with. if you look at a place like india, what they're able to do, china is starting to do the same

thing. we need to recognize that the rest of the world is starting to catch up. if we need a different model than we did 20 years ago. kind of continue on that point, if you go back 20 years ago, 1 billion people were participating in the global economy, the u.s., a couple of western europeans, japan and a few others. we added china, india, russia, and other countries that are opening up and recognizing a private sector, a robust private sector in need of prosperity. but we still act like we did 20 years ago. we're not recognizing that world gdp shift is coming, it's already occurring. we need to act differently than we have in the past. one of the things i'd say as an american concerns me for my own country. i just don't feel like we get it yet. it will be one of these that we don't recognize it until it's too late. we're going to argue about our entitlements and taxes instead of focusing on math and science education in all levels of our schools, infrastructure. it's an old one for business. tort reform needs to get done. doing a better job with free trade. there's a lot of stuff -- energy policy. there's a lot of stuff that we need to be doing that we're just arguing and the rest of the world is moving. >> on that note, questions? yes, please. wait for the microphone. if you could -- if you could tell us who you are? >> good morning.

adele golfo, pfizer. i run our latin american business. and a lot of great comments, thank you, in a lot of different areas. go back to the growth prospects and talk a lot about china for the ability to grow, india and innovation. i'm curious about latin america, and specifically, something you said about china's ability to evolve. so i'm interested in latin america, brazil, mexico. growth prospects. the ability -- >> so something that you have to deal with. it never gets to a point where you get over 50% of the vote and people start thinking, the reason i'm not doing well is because those guys have everything. now, not to say that flavor

isn't there. but it's not there to an overwhelming extent. latin american companies still show this ability, okay, we're opening up. no, we'll go the other way. there's a line that we liked from churchill that said with capitalism, you have unequal sharing of the prosperity. with socialism, you have equal sharing of the misery. with the populous tendency, there's too much of a tendency to go that way. that makes me fearful. in brazil, we participate there. it's a great market to be in until a little recently. but we start to see it even with the bus fare stuff that's been going on down there. you say, oh, gee, it's starting to have that same tendency. the popularity that takes over, the government, still causes me concern.

>> mexico? >> i view mexico differently. they still have the same kind of question and concern. but they benefit from being this close to the u.s. where we generally are able to not let that take over. mexico, i'm a little bullish. starting to get nervous about it there say ten years ago, what i'm seeing, i'm encouraged by the things they're doing with technical education, the stuff they're talking about with pemex, the reforms they're talking about generally on the education system. so i'm optimism on mexico. >> hi, bloomberg business news. forgive me. fresh off of the red eye. i want to get a sense of your view whether you would be interested in if you've done anything with this joint

venture, this direct investment fund that they have. because it's the first big deal i've seen. i'm curious about how business is viewing that market right now. >> i don't know enough about what jeff is doing to talk much about that. when it comes to russia, generally. i want to believe. i think it's guoed if -- good for the world if they kind of come into the capitalist democratic fold. that's a good phenomenon for the world. the concern you still have to have is that the rule of law is not completely established. there's too many -- there's just still too many concerns when it comes to, okay, is this really a place where you can have trust in the institutions, getting back to the beginning of the discussion today. you have to be able to have trust in your institutions. that's something that they need to evolve to. i think they're fully capable of being able to do that, but it has to happen. and you just have to be able to trust that if there's a dispute of some kind, that it's going to get resolved peacefully, commercially, independently. you may disagree with the decision, but at the end of the day, you can trust that there

was nothing corrupted, impacted it in any way. and i wouldn't say they're completely there yet. in the meantime, we still view it as a very good place to do business. we're going continue to do business there ourselves. but i'm going to be careful about how i think about how does a dispute get handled with anything i have to do. >> yes. please?

>> thank you, "wall street journal," thank you, david. i'm heidi messer, chairman of collective eye, a technology company focused on providing business intelligence as a service. i'm curious your thoughts about the immigration reform debate that's happening in wa and the likelihood of the bill getting through? >> i -- i was just down there a couple of days ago. and would say it sounds promising that they're going to do something. it will continue like everything down there, with fits and starts and people have been down there a long time saying that every deal has to fall apart three

times before they actually get something done. but at the end of the day, it feels like something is going to happen here. i'd like to think this gives us momentum when it comes to getting other things done like the debt. they'll say, gee, let's carry this forward momentum. when it comes to immigration, i know most ceos are probably in favor of it. i am too. but not just because it's good for a company or as a ceo, but a couple of reasons. one you do want the high intellect people coming here. you just want that. i don't see why you'd ever want to turn that away. and this prospect that somebody says they have a great idea. they've got a -- they're brilliant. they think they can make $1 billion here. let them at it. because if they make $1 billion, the country will get 20 out of it. it's stuff that we ought to be encouraging. but i'm also in favor of the kind of just regular old immigration.

the people who have the guts to want to come here to the country to try to make a better life for themselves. and i've likened it to, okay, you get to the party at 7:00, it's good at 7:30. you shut the door to anybody else coming in to the party. i never thought that was quite fair. and if i look at my own antecedents, they came from quebec from france in 1634 and 100 or so years ago walked across the border to take jobs in the textile mills in manchester, new hampshire. i don't think they registered with anybody on the way in. i'm not too hung up -- >> i was born here. my birth certificate is in good shape. >> do you have a green card? >> i have a tough time kind of saying, no, we're not going to give you the same opportunity. by the way, at the same time, we need population increase if we're going to address the social security, medicare issue i was just talking about, withe

need more people to pay into the system and the dynamic they can help to create if they come to the country, people willing to take the chance, that's a good thing for the country. >> yes, please. >> amy wilkinson, harvard university. my focus is on entrepreneurial leadership. my question is to follow up on your comments about evolving. how is if the world is evolving 4% a year or the markets going from 1 billion to 4 billion, etc. what do you do to evolve and encourage people inside your company to evolve. >> yeah, i spent a lot of time talking about it. this whole concept of evolution, i talk about it every place i can go. the training classes that come, in ill talk to them. the senior leadership meeting. the town halls i talk about it. it's how i do my own appraisals with my own people. and i generally put all of the

conversations in that context to be able to say, okay, we're going to have a 60-minute meeting. we can spend a minute of it with you telling us everything that you did. that's great. or we're going spend the next 59 talking about where you're going. because you have to constantly be looking forward, recognizing the things are changing, things are evolving. but i wouldn't say there's any like one thing you can do. it just has to be relentless. you have to constantly be talking about it, making that point, not just at the person level, but at the organization level. too much of a tendency to be just proud of what they did. which is good, we should have pride in that. but because of that, kind of forget, oh, there's more to come. the world is still changing, my competitors are changing. customers are changing. technology is changing. i need to change that way. so it starts with me. i have to recognize that. and keep thinking that way. one of the things i wondered about myself in this job.

every two or three years, you have a national stimulus that thinks differently because you got a different job. you're the change agent. you come in and have to do that. you look at it and you go, i'm going to be in a job for ten years, how do i make sure i keep doing that. it was one of the things i wondered about myself whether i could do it or not. it worked out. happy to report it worked out. i can do it. i wonder about myself. so it's one of the things that you constantly have to be aware of. >> do you have personal checks? do you have somebody that you go to to make sure you're giving the same message that you're delivering internally to your managers? >> about how i need to evolve? or is it -- >> right. >> crossing over that ten years, as you attempt to do that? >> well, i'd say -- first of all, it's part of who i am, which kind of helps. i tend to be curious. i like talking to everybody.

finding out what are you doing, what are you seeing? what's happening. i travel a lot. which helps, i've been over 100 countries in this job coming back two weeks in asia. i get out there a lot to talk to all kinds of different people. my board is helpful and we have a very good board of people who have run big stuff, which is i think important for board composition. so you get a lot of different looks at things and that helms. there's no one person that i look to to -- >> question? yes, please? >> be kind, bob, be kind. >> a.j., first of all, congratulations of being the ceo of the year, representing the business community as well as you do professionally as you do, it means a lot to us out here. my question is, you know, we've been given a second chance in this country thanks to innovation, the disruptive and advanced organization in oil and

gas fracking and so forth. the second chance to get energy independence. could be one of the best job creators. we know that defense spending the, the chain, etc., etc. why are we not moving more quickly than we are? why are we waiting 1700 days to make a decision and fight for it. from your perspective, both the business and the relationship, why aren't we moving quicker on one of the best initiatives to help our country. >> a couple of things i'd like to comment on that. first of all, thank you for the point you're making on being a spokesperson for business. because i do think that since 2008, the role of business in american society has been one of -- viewed as one that needs to be regulated more. and while -- okay, i'm not an anti-regulation guy. i understand there's minimum standards that need to be

reached, at the end of the day, there's an enabling function also. i said many times it american success story, you can look at it that most of that came from business. it's government enabling business and regular latering it in the right way. if you take a look at where the productivity came from that led to prosperity and standard of living, it came from business and government enabling business to be successful. not in an anti-regulation way, but by making sure that the fiscal house was in order, the kids were educated. and the people like me had an opportunity at a young age to be able to turn into something that we had good infrastructure. i mean all of those things are enablers that government needs to do. one of the things that they could do to enable further is exactly what you said, energy policy. and we had a lot of conversations about how when we look at the debt problem, right now we look at it and say there's only two solutions. you raise taxes or you cut spending. there is a third possibility that we keep introducing. it won't solve the whole problem. but it serbly helms. that is to really unleash the energy sector. and if you start looking at the benefits to that, it's not just

that consumers instead of having $4 gas could have $2 gas, which is like getting a tax cut for them. and takes out some of the uncertainty. through 20/20, ihs does studies that it adds 1 million jobs to the energy sector. through 2035, adds something like $1 trillion of government revenue at the local, state, and federal level. so this is already going to be big. it could be bigger if we had smarter, faster permitting. it doesn't mean let stuff fly through, it means get the decisions done quickly so the companies know to move on or not. it could have a bigger impact than that. i would go back -- they have to get through immigration. they have to get through debt right now with energy. if they just leave it alone, that would be -- that would be a good thing, you know? just don't touch it too much. and it's just part of the frustration. as the government and as a people, we've forgotten the significance of business of the american success story. and we've forgotten how important it is for government to enable business to be successful. >> is there a concern in your mind that natural gas, this extraordinary discovery and the private sector that the

government did a lot of the initial research on fracking for the private sector finances and found a way to make it profitable. that this is going to be kind of a bridge to renewables that's going to be just an extension of our consumption of carbon with climate change concerns?. .

.

that's our challenge and that's our concern, to get it right. >> final question to both of you. is this ultimately going to come down to a decision for spaker boehner between his speaker's gavel and passing comprehensive immigration reform that could also help the republican party, help the country in the future? >> well, i can't -- i don't know. i mean, mario may have a greater insight, but i've always believed that it will be necessary to have a big chunk of republican support to pass a bill, and that's why we work so ong to try to grow a solid bill that not only democrats, but republicans could support.

that's still my hope and goal, and i have to defer the rest of the question. >> i don't see it that way. again, our challenge is to be able to come up with legislation that the majority f our colleagues will support. that the majority of our colleagues will understand, again, does what we claim it must do. and that's our challenge, and i've said it multiple times publicly. i think to get this done, we need it to be bipartisan, not bipartisan like wink and a nod, it has to be bipartisan. the country needs to understand that it's really, that it's serious, that it's permanent, that it's enforceable. i think there are a lot of people in the house that want to fix this, and i know that speaker boehner wants a solution, so our challenge is to give him a proposal that meets that criteria. >> thanks to you both for sharing your thoughts on this very controversial, sensitive,

and important topic, and you've given me lots of ammunition. i'm going to go up to the hill and interview another congressman, so this conversation will then this weekend, and i have lots more to ask. thanks very much. thanks to bloomberg. back to you. >> thank you so much. lots of other events here too. >> congress will be back in session from their july fourth break on monday with the house set to take up the 2014 energy and water projects bill. we'll have live coverage when they return at 2:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span. and the senate will be working on 2014 spending and the student loan interest rates. you can watch that live coverage on c-span2 beginning at 2:00 eastern.

tonight on c-span, part of this year's net roots nation conference from san jose, california, it begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern with a discussion about the challenges women in political office face. then at 9:20, a look at political candidates' gaffes that were caught on tape. watch both discussions here on c-span or at c-span.org. >> if the county were a state, it would be in the top five oil producers in the nation. to put this in a little more context, 75% of all of oil production in california is done in kern county, and over 0% of the natural gas is produced in california is right here in kern county. when you're in this county, oil, along with agriculture, they're the two largest

industries that we have, and it really turns the economy. >> explore the history and literary life of bakersfield, california, this weekend on c-span's book tv and american history tv on c-span3. >> no man needs a strong partner, an honest partner, more than the american cook ent, sheltered and aned what he is. that's what i concluded after five years of interviews, that those presidents with brave spouses, willing to speak sometimes hard truths that others are unwilling to speak to the big guy, those presidents have a distinct advantage. let me give you an example. had pat nixon been able to cut through her husband's paranoia, watergate might have been avoided, but pat had long since given up on her husband by the time they reached the white

house. they were leading virtually separate lives as you'll see in my portrayal of this saddest of all presidential couples. i don't give my husband advice, pat was quoted as saying, because he doesn't need it. well, is there a man or woman alive who doesn't need advice from the person who knows him or her best? >> as we continue our conversation on first ladies, it author kati marton talks about presidential marriages and how the first ladies shaped american hifert, monday night at 9:00 eastern on c-span. this discussion on computer hacking looked at why political activists break into computer networks and the legal ramifications for hackers and leakers from the annual left forum at pace university in new york. this is two hours. >> she is the scholar on these opics.

her first book, "coding freedom" is published by rinceton university. he is working on a book on anonymous and digital media. go to her website. she is a prolific speaker. you can find a lot of her stuff that is really amazing. will potter is another amazing writer, journalist, author and public speaker. he is a leading authority on the animal rights and environmental movements. you can find his writing in outlets such as "rolling stone," "mother jones," "the

los angeles times," "the ashington post." he is also on radio. suggest seeing a recent debate that he had with animal industry pr person that was great. i think will won. his book "green is the new red" provides an excellent look at the post-9/11 assault on the animal rights and environment movements, and labeling activists and terrorists. last but not least, grainne o'neill, lawyer for the activist jeremy hammond. she received a j.d. from columbia law, and a b.a. in mathematics and computer science from cornell. she was a public defender in new orleans. she became direct or of the legal systems of technology, and developed new tools to enhance the performance of her fellow attorneys.

a round of applause for these panelists. i am going to start off with an introduction, laying a framework about what is information activism, and why t is important for democracy. his is an excellent quote. his is thomas jefferson. t lays out two important things, i think. information is necessary, a necessary fuel for the democratic fire. he mechanism that was used for

this in the founding period really was the separation of owers and in the bill of rights. the freedom of the press. it is the mechanism that allows information to be desseminated to the public. when we talk about what it means, all of these founding athers were members of the press as well. the press at this time was not a corporate moneyed press. it was a political, vibrant, independent press. the constitution says freedom of the press, it means the freedom to speak anonymously,

as well as what we are doing. it was normal within political discourse to speak anonymously. that is something that has been lost in our concept of free press. in a sense, these guys were the first anons. i was talking about the information. how did it flow in checks and alances? i'm representing information with these blue arrows. the constitutional system requires a flow of information between the branches of government. the government cannot work when that, when the information is disrupted. the press is this mediator between the back and forth. another element here, it is not particularly exclusive or contemplative within our

framework, which is the corporation. especially during the beginning of the founding of the country. the corporation was a body of government. any information that corporations provide is a result of law. corporation is a legal fiction. this is a trend that we have een over the past few years, which is -- to be 60-70 years.

an expansion of the executive branch of government. an increasing opaqueness to that branch am i taking over the other branches of government, and restricting the flow of information from all branches of government. often aided by the other branches of government. a few examples of this, this is the number of documents that have been declassified, starting in 1980. that you can see the trends. especially compared to over similar time, this is the number of classifications of documents that have been classified. ou can see the spike here, which is the creation of a whole separate internet. it is the world's largest dark net. a government contractor, semi rivate arrangement where

massive amounts of information are being shared. that involves, the last figures i saw were 5 million people, contractors with access to this classified world. back to our diagram. the executive has gotten larger and more opaque. at the same time, the corporate sector has gotten larger. i do not think this is dequate. what we really have seen in the world of government information is emerging of the corporation and the government and a large part of the press. it involves the military-industrial complex, and all of these forms of national security. the press is a huge part of that. we have seen the corporate press with this system. you can't make corporate press,

the heyday of the corporate press, that actually had an ffect on the public. where we have seen the corporate press where we are today, propaganda for war. do not think anybody embodies us more than thomas friedman in terms of the vacuous warmongering nature of the corporate media. so, here we have a number of corporations that control the media over this time that we

are talking about. it tells that story in another way. we have this corporate stage. we have small amounts of information being mediated through actual media. we have large amounts of propaganda coming through the media. have a same time, we have a huge amount of information coming from the public into the whole. the black box of the corporate state. i do not think anyone embodies us more than michael bloomberg, who orchestrated massive spying campaigns. he was the master of massive spying campaigns on the muslim community.

to put it simply, we have seen massive increases in corporate and government secrecy, a decrease in individual privacy. after the nsa revelation, we're about here. who has taken on the corporate state? what are the successes, the mechanisms which information has come out? i have broadly outlined four categories. when i said journalist, i do not mean the people on tv. i am not talking about brian williams. i am, the green walls of the world, people who are taking on power. people who are not within the power system, but were trying to take it on. a, leakers, activists, and hackers. i'm going to go through examples of the corporate state response to people within these categories.

here we have journalists, a few examples. james rosen is not an ndependent journalist. julian assange, -- nd the private, public orkings of that has been set p in a really bad situation by he fbi, facing 100 years worth of charges and denied bail in a jail in texas.

we see leakers. bradley manning, these are people who are exposed to certain degrees of government legality, government wrongdoing, and torture programs. the innocent people, millions of dollars wasted on bundling money to private hands for useless projects. bradley manning exposing war crimes. they have been treating accordingly. bradley manning is facing a life sentence. the nsa whistleblowers are all career-long nsa people, their homes raided and careers ruined. here is another category of activists. these are animal rights activists who have been very effective at their work. there was a huge campaign against them, very successful at damaging the credibility. it is an effort to stop their

practices. the phenomenon that we see here is terrorism prosecutions used against these people. no one here actually harmed or intended to harm any person. these are animal rights activists. nonetheless, they have been treated as terrorist. 22 year sentence, labeled terrorist. the shac 7 ran a website. that was their crime. these are the more famous hacking groups. the paypal 14 were accused of dos-ing paypal sites. you requested website over and ver again in an attempt to slow it down or stop temporarily.

they have all been indicted with federal charges. ulzsec is similar. their main hacking charges for breaking into a company, extracting documents, and releasing them to wikileaks. it revealed lots of illegal activity, spying on activists, bribing foreign officials. these are things that were exposed. the government has chosen to prosecute the people who expose

rather than the corporate malfeasance. i'm going to close and open it up to gabriella next. i wanted to and with this slide. i think it is a really telling story that this is a painting, by george w. bush of himself, released by acker. i think that this tells a story. when contrasted to what he wants you to think of him as, what is the reality? what is the world we want to live in? the world with more power -- or he real world? where power is exposed. i want to welcome gabriella.

>> i will just up and by thanking y'all for putting the anel panel together. t is great to be here. also, for those, recognize a ew people in the audience to sell my talk i gave a few days ago. it is similar but longer. here is added value. i wanted to mention that. what i'm going to do today is actually, the first half is to give background on anonymous.

there's is quite a bit of misinformation about them. what is addition about them is that they are a domain where hackers are important, but they are more open than that. hey integrate participants from many different backgrounds, one of the reasons hy they grown so much.

they talk about why they are so important, and way they are so distinctive at some level. that is important because as we get to the crackdown against them, it is a crackdown against the rise of civil disobedience online. it is in its early history. the legal crackdowns really can have an affect. i am just going to start now. you can see all of my slides. here is a question without an easy answer. who is anonymous? after four years of research, i still struggle for an adequate answer. since 2000, different groups of hackers have organized very different groups using this name. participants have taken on very diverse causes, from rape cases to leaking. a rally most around censorship and privacy. one thing is certain. anonymous is tailor-made for the news. it is widely auctioned, it feeds into the media's appetite for the sensational. i want to correct two of the most common misconceptions about them. many journalists portray them not only as hackers, but is something like the honey badgers of activision. the honey badger is a frightening and fastening animal. incredibly brave, incredibly tupid. apparently can even repel lions and honeybees and snakes. basically, the slides -- hold on.

that should work. ok. hopefully double fix the problem. the honey badger is frightening, incredibly brave and stupid. like the narrative goes, these hackers just to not give a shit. they are just quite shocked that their actions may seem more mature. this thing is possessed. let's see if this takes care of it. it is for this reason that i have been asked over 20 times about anonymous's transition.

every time they do an operation it seems more mature, they say they are maturing. they are going into adulthood. fair enough. the birth of anonymous can perhaps be located as a time of transition. for those that may not know, prior to the name being used for activism, the name anonymous was used primarily for internet trolling and ranking. what they call internet -- do ou know? i don't know how to stop this. it is not my computer. they basically were named by trolls to go on cranking campaigns. in 2008, they went on a

campaign against the church of scientology. through a very complicated set of reasons, they decided to earnestly protest the church of scientology. a political movement was orn. should we -- what? t just goes. i think there's a setting -- do you know? that should work. orry about this.

let me try one more thing. there is a setting where -- do you know? it should work. >> basically, there is this narrative, everyone thinks they are immature. when anonymous got involved in tunisia, when they got involved in rape cases, journalists are like they are maturing. over and over again. really, this is not a good way to understand anonymous. in some ways, irreverence is part of what they do. if we are going to identify the honey badgers of anonymous, that title can be reserved for