of the cia and the nsa doesn't think it's a problem to let everyone know that terrorists just love gmail, why do you think a company by company exposure threatens national security? >> a couple of thoughts on that. to my knowledge, general hayden didn't talk to us before making those statements. i don't know if we authorized that statement to be made. the point is that if we allow the companies on an annual basis to publish these statistics, it it's going to simply provide additional information out there as new companies come online and pop up you may have a company that for a period of years shows no orders and then all of a sudden starts showing orders and that conveys a message that says, we have the capability to collect this now. the more detail we provide out there and the more we break this down by authorities and companies, the more easy it becomes for our adversaries to know where to talk and where not to talk. what we have agreed to allow the companies to do is to report the aggregate number of times in which they provide information to the government and that seems to me is a

of the cia and the nsa doesn't think it's a problem to let everyone know that terrorists just love gmail, why do you think a company by company exposure threatens national security? >> a couple of thoughts on that. to my knowledge, general hayden didn't talk to us before making those statements. i don't know if we authorized that statement to be made. the point

google collects information by scanning your gmail, by looking at what you look up, by looking videos youtube watch. they have 60 different services and combine data and they make over 90% of their income, which is huge, over 50 billion dollars a year, providing that information to advertisers. so, websites for credit card .ompanies are doing web lining the people who give out home loans are web lining. it might even be as simple as, a your family has entered poorer zip code anyplace on a website, your child may be getting ads for trade schools appropriate scholarship material for the ivy league. it is any of the services that make judgments about who to go after in terms of giving benefits, or taking away benefits online. >> professor andrews, you also talk about web weakens and web scrapers. hat are they? >> there are a variety of mechanisms to find out where you go on the web. a simple one is cookies. they start out benignly. , you agree to do cookies so you would not have to enter information about your shipping address every time. they could send you recommendations. then it got

, i don't use gmail, but you can. any free e-mail system is good, but yahoo! is what i typically use because it's the easiest to get on and easiest to obtain. everybody have a yahoo! account in here? so, you know most of you guys know how to do it? if someone doesn't know how to do it i'll stop right now. basically when you get onto yahoo!.com, you're going to go here and sign up. we'll get started here. * this is the next screen that will come up. and in here you just start making your -- you don't have to put your full real name in there. make one up. john smith is too generic. they're going to see that. because they'll go back and check your yahoo! account. so, make sure your yahoo! account corresponds with your fake facebook account. okay. take the yahoo! id. i used street art for you, illegal street art. use something that they would use. mostly of you guys know about graffiti a little bit in here, right? so, you can makeup something. do you guys want to tell your handle? it asks you for all this stuff. obviously you're not going to put your real birth da

director of nsa and cia gave a speech in which he "gmail is the preferred internet service provider for terrorists worldwide. -- worldwide." that is a verbatim quote. it seems to me of the former head of the cia and the nsa does not think it is a problem to let everyone know that terrorists just love gmail, why do you companycompany by disclosure threatens national security? he evidently doesn't. >> a couple of thoughts on that. he didn't talk to us before making the statements. i don't know that we would have authorized this statement be made. i just do not know what was done there. if we allow the companies on an annual basis to publish these statistics, it is simply going to provide additional information out there as new companies come online and pop up. you may have a company for a. of years -- a period of years that shows orders, and that conveys messages that we have the capability to collect this now. the more detailed we provide out there and the more we break this down by authorities and companies, the more easy it becomes for our adversaries to know where to talk and where no

i have had an email accounted with gmail and it looked at hundreds and thousands of emails that i haveand it has a time line at the bottom and the biggest relationships are bigger dots -- and you can see them change over time like a word cloud. but just with the metadata. no context of the emails. but he was able to highlight a producer on fault lineses, and that includes everyone that worked on fault lines. so if you were a government and wanted to go after political enemies and who they are associating with, it is very effective if you only get the metadata. in fact metadata can be more telling than the content of the call. who you are calling is more important than the content that says i would like an appointment on monday. >> yeah, and that is sort of the argument that has been made, we're only looking at the metadata, but really it can be as you say very telling about what somebody's communications are. do you see moving forward on this as a result of your investigation into this, does it help us to understand what is now? >> well, i think there is going to be action moving forwa

whether it's gmail, you how -- >> i guess we don't.be tried to contact yahoo and didn't hear anything back. there is a legitimate expectation of privacy? >> not according to the united states supreme court in recent opinions. >> they can collate this dat and use it to advertise -- >> not on this specific topic. >> understood. >> but in general they're like, look, folks, you should not expect any privacy on the internet anymore. now, what i'm hoping for, is this -- we went forward 100 yards and hope we go back 50 yards. suits like this help. this is all driven by money. we're oregon a money show -- >> the argue. would be, would stymy traffic on the internet and it -- >> no. it was only stop yahoo from reading your mail. >> are they reading or scanning. >> scanning. >> what dot that mean, a series of words. >> car, sweeter. >> but whether it's scanning for this, scanning for spam or viruses, they're scanning if you have such a concern-don't e-mail it. >> there's a concern. that comes up in e-mails and advertising targeted to you. >> and

i wrote an e-mail on gmail the other day. based on what i wrote, it asked me if i wanted to put something on my calendar. with changes in technology, what is the fuss about? this is an open question, if anybody would like to respond. [applause] >> these types of dialogs are very important. these discussions are the things our elected officials consider when they decide to make changes in our laws. things that change the landscape of the laws that were enacted when those things did not exist. that is very important. to get back to the point on political groups, for example. a scenario where we have a situation where we have a predicated investigation, a violation of federal law has occurred or will occur. it is determined that the people involved are either a political candidate, a politician, or involved in a political organization. that steps up the oversight. we recognize the effect that might have in chilling people's involvement in political activity. it gets even more oversight and scrutiny that it would if that identica

the gmail integration is working well. the turnaround is in place. that's why it's moving to a 52-week high. >> the new ceo, the largest shareholder, long 110 million shares of groupon. here's the thing, right? this company is -- the stock is up 100%, like joe said. margin improvement of late. but the company is priced for, like, high sales growth, and only expected to grow sales at 9%. in august, they announced moving into the direct-goods sales to consumers. so not the daily deal. they're shifting their business model. they're going to be buying warehouses to store goods. to me, this is really a grab for sales at a very low margin. think about who they're going up against -- amazon and costco. so to me, the brand's okay, the strategy's still in check. who knows if it will work out here, and they have some really stiff competition. it will be at the expense of earnings, and that's my only point. >> in the refresh, understand this company -- [ buzzer ] -- has the ability to do the acti acquisition. 6% of sales. you have to like a company that's able

is looking to launch a geo-satellite and the indian government is contemplating the elimination of gmail and yahoo for government employees in germany is looking to localize crowds and they have launched an e-mail in germany that is safe from the nsa. we are seeing this fracturing of the internet environment which is not good for anyone and in the short term, there will be business opportunities. but in the long-term, the internet activities, we are reacting and vulcanize them. and that is not solving the problem and what that is is creating a challenge to steal and interoperability challenges and the spread of open information than what we need is to balance out that in all of the economic benefits associated with that with the need for real pragmatic approaches to better secure our networks. so it takes us is right to question that we have gotten by e-mail from an anonymous individual. not the group, but someone who doesn't want attribution to the question. and as by e-mail, do you think that there is a need for a cyberweapons convention, much like the ncp, which is the nuclear nonprol

stationary satellite to africa into europe and the indian government is contemplating the elimination of gmail and yahoo! mail accounts for government employees. germany is looking to localize lodging e-mail made in germany, which is safe from the nsa. fragmentationthis of the internet environment which is not good for anyone. in the short term, there will be business opportunities. but in -- >> the internet is bad conductivity and we are reacting by disconnecting. >> we are vulcanizing. that is not solving the problem. that is grading challenges to scale, to interoperability, creates a challenges to the free and open spread of information. we need to balance that an economic benefit associated with that with the need for real and pragmatic approaches to better securing networks. >> hill, this takes us to a question we have received by e- wonderfully, anonymous. not the group, but somebody who doesn't want attribution to the question. asked why e-mail, do you think there is a need for a cyber weapons convention much like the npt? who should govern it and is there even an interest? asked this q

for a simpleton like me, for instance, i have a gmail account. to open an account, i could scened an encrypted e-mail to someone with an account, and nobody could read in between? clarify what's going on here. >> thanks for having me today. yes, absolutely, that's the case. we launched last tuesday, and we have over 6,000 users signed up, over 50,000 messages have been exchanged. and exactly, if you sign up, and you authenticate your identity and put a very secure password with, we have a mechanism that guarantees every message is encrypted independently with a different key. so not only we do that, but we also connect the messages to the path to the server and the server to the recipient, and there is really no racket cay way to go -- practical way to find those keys -- adam: so let me stop you there. i send the message be, it's encrypted, nobody can read it. if i send it to somebody who's not part of my business or is a friend but is on przo, how does it get decoded? do they have a key, or do i have to send them the key for that particular e-ma

google collects information by scanning your gmails, by looking at what you look up, by looking at what, you know, what youtube videos you watch. they have 60 different services, and they combine data, ask they make over -- and they makeover 90% of their income which is huge, over $50 billion a year, providing that information to advertisers. so web sites for credit card companies are doing web lining, the people who give out home loans are doing web lining. it might even be as simple as if your family has entered a poorer zip code can -- any lace on a web -- place on a web site, your child may be getting ads for trade schools instead of kind of appropriate scholarship material for the ivy league. so it's any of the services that make judgments about who to go after in terms of getting benefits or taking away went fits online. >> host: professor andrews, you also talk about web beacons and web scrapers. what are they? >> guest: so there are a variety of mechanisms to find out where you go on the web. a simple one is cookies, and they started out benignly enough, you know, in amazon, you

you look at a google through my gmail or apple, how much more or facebook or whomever, are they mores a relative issue. >> that's my point. the other sites are just as insecure -- >> no, not necessarily, guys. you have to understand in government systems, you deal with regulations that don't affect the private sector in terms of the information you can collect. facebook has been pulled before congress and had to testify about privacy. but in terms of a major breach of issue, they have not had that. they've had security or privacy issues. but they haven't had a major breach, neither has google. this site is primed to have a major breach. >> primed because you see the whole? you could hack it right now if you wanted to? >> yeah, actually, one of the people we had on with us, david kennedy, one of the hackers clearly demonstrated to many of the systems already vulnerable and that it would be very easy at this point to take the site down. >> wow. >> yeah. >> wow. >> it's not fun news to have but, you know, bad news is not like wine, it doesn't get better with age. if we're going to addre

so when companies don't want things to be forwarding things to this gmail or texting to their personal phone, they would rather keep it all on a device and be able to make sure that that information is secure. >> but it works on any device? >> it works on any device. it's a firly expensive license. they're trying to change their pricing model so more employees within an organization can have a license to use it because that saves the skp money. >> does it make it et any includekier or is that something you would even notice? >> you know, it doesn't. i didn't really notice that on the app. i would have it. i would love it if cnbc got this. but i haven't experienced it on my own device with pictures, music, a ton of that storage on there. but the thing about good is it's not keeping all your information native. i asked her about cyber security and that's one thing we're going to be talking about later today. one of all these industry owes this one platform, does that make you more susceptible? she said no because we don't store the messages, we just allow the employee to connect to a com

i wrote an e-mail on gmail the other day.ed on what i wrote, it asked me if i wanted to put something on my calendar. with changes in technology, what is the fuss about? this is an open question, if anybody would like to respond. >> these types of dialogs are very important. these discussions are the rings that -- things our elected officials consider when they decide to make changes in our laws. things that change the landscape of the laws that were enacted when those things did not exist. that is very important. to get back to the point on political groups, for example. a scenario where we have a situation where we have a predicated investigation, a violation of federal law has occurred or will occur. it is determined that the people involved are either a political candidate, a politician, or involved in a political organization. that steps up the oversight. we recognize the effect that might have in chilling people's involvement in political activity. it gets even more oversight and scrutiny that it would if that identical

. >> when will we get to a place where we can have one password as a consumer on gmail and apple and. what are we going to get there? >> very soon. one of our forthcoming products. >> you are going to go to the consumer soon? >> at one point, yes. it's a great opportunity for us. >> you can't do a fingerprint? >> fingerprint's a good start. i think there's a lot more to it. >> are you into the fingerprint thing? i spoke to somebody recently -- i won't say who who suggested they thought the biometric stuff was actually going to long-term become a problem. >> i think it's a great opportunity, i think the devices that have come out with it are very good, few you think about it, it's been around for a while. you might have had a laptop over the last five or ten years that has had fingerprint. it depends on how people use it. >> now, just -- just history -- your entrepreneurship and history. i love to hear a great story. you met your partner in all of this at sales force. went to m.i.t. how did this get started? >> yeah. i did. i met me co-founder at salesforce.com, we met there and what