Cybersecurity: Trends, Risks and Innovations

Cybersecurity: Trends, Risks and Innovations

Show Video

but now i'd like to introduce the  speakers here this evening first i'd   like to introduce professor terry cramer who's a  ucla alumnus and he's also an adjunct professor   of technology management and serves as the faculty  director of eastern's technology management centre   some students anderson students may have already  taken his core technology management course   his tech and society course or may even  have taken the global immersion course   that he teaches for the centre that focuses on  technology driven transformation and innovation   in the greater china region he'll also  be teaching the course for us again   next year professor terry kramer has extensive  technology and leadership expertise in the   domestic and international telecommunication  industry where he enjoyed a 30-year career   18 of those 30 years he worked for vodafone in a  variety of executive roles both domestically and   internationally while serving as an entrepreneur  in residence at his alma mater harvard business   school in 2012 he was appointed by president  barack obama to serve as ambassador head of   the u.s delegation for the world conference on  international telecommunications this delegation   actually formulated and communicated the us policy  regarding the criticality of a free and open   internet as well as an inclusive multi-stakeholder  governance and the need to proactively address   cyber security issues fortunately for us  he is now a full-time adjunct professor at   anderson please join me in welcoming professor  terry kramer i'm next going to introduce before   we hear from professor terry kramer professor  andrew selps who is an assistant professor of law   at the ucla school of law prior to joining ucla  he was a post-doctoral scholar at the data and   society research institute and a visiting fellow  at yale law school's information society project   professor selps research examines the relationship  between law technology and society and over the   last several years his research has focused on  the effects of machine learning and artificial   intelligence on varied legal regimes including  discrimination policing credit regulation data   protection and tort law his research has appeared  in many preeminent legal publications including   the california law review and the international  data privacy law he worked as a design engineer   before attending law school at the university  of michigan and then following law school he   was a privacy research fellow at nyu school of law  information law institute and also an al morrison   supreme court assistance fellow at public citizen  litigation group so please join me in welcoming   professor terry kramer first and then secondly  we'll hear from professor andrew selps thank you you lucy and i hope you guys can hear me uh  okay i want to first just thank lucy for bringing   all of us together because i can't think of  a more timely and relevant topic something   that's affecting all of us today real time and  something that's significant in impact um you   know eric schmidt who's a former ceo of google  recently was talking about the number of antitrust   cases that are being brought against u.s tech  companies certainly in china you're seeing a   massive focus on tech but one of the comments  that he made that was so interesting is he said   a lot of these issues we're seeing today are  a manifestation of the growing penetration of   technology all the services that we use whether  we're in e-commerce or social networks or ai   for healthcare etc is that there's a growing  penetration of these and you're going to have   more and more issues get created so when lucy  was talking about this balancing act that to me   is the most important element it is easy to get  ideological and absolutist on one side or another   but figuring out how do you create the right  outcomes that benefit technology and its users   which traditionally technology is cheaper  better and faster now that's obviously the   the promotional line that people would use but you  do see a lot of companies are able to offer that   but you also see a growing set of tech lash  issues data privacy issues any trust issues   cyber security issues future of work issues etc  etc etc and how do you balance those matters so   i want to share a few thoughts with you here let  me see if this will advance so to the point about   something being timely friday's wall street  journal talked about the latest in ransomware   it is on pace this year to 2x increase over the  previous year it was a monitoring of what looked   like suspicious payments that have been reported  by banks and again numbers up twice this is a   big area of focus in the biden administration next  slide so what i'd like to do in just a few minutes   time is make sure there's kind of a level set  about what is going on and whenever i think about   business problems or opportunities and for those  of you that take my classes you already know this   and for those that are going to take them  in the future you'll see it in the future   everything in my mind is wired around three things  when you're looking at an opportunity or challenge   one is what's the problem you're trying to solve  the second thing is what do you know about context   what do you know about what's going  on with technology and consumers and   public policy and a variety of things and then  ultimately what would you go do otherwise we're   kind of shooting from the hip about what we think  the problem is and what needs to get solved so in   this environment the problem very much is how do  we reduce the cyber attacks the cyber security   challenges while not creating an unintended  consequence of lack of benefit of technology   and technology-based businesses how do you strike  that balance to me is the is the problem what i'd   like to cover just briefly is what are some of  the the kind of state of the union issues in cyber   security the types of attacks the targets of the  attacks because they're very different targets of   the attacks recent trends and what are the costs  of these obviously if the costs are small we don't   need to worry about anything the costs are large  you got to worry a significant amount then the   next issue is once we have all of that who owns  the problem there's a lot of players involved in   cyber security related issues businesses and  individuals and governments and regulators   etc and then the final area i'd like to cover  is areas of innovation and potential solutions   so first of all types of cyber attacks they  are very very broad there's not one single type   so denial of service anytime you get an outside  player that wants to stop the workings of the   internet you have a denial of service it doesn't  even need to be for ransom it's just somebody that   wants to see an interruption of service phishing  attacks people that mislead others to get them to   provide confidential information their passwords  their birth dates other uh identifying information   password attacks similar idea somebody that  gets you to share what your password is   they then use it in some other context and  they're able to monopolize on that information   malware probably one of the most worrisome  events that occurred just a few months ago   was a solar winds attack that affected our u.s  government so basically unbeknownst to others in   a software upgrade you basically had malicious  software that then caused huge problems um the   other one ransomware and and by the way if you  remember the continental pipeline i think it   was about a year ago it provides basically fuel  natural gas for 45 of the east coast of the us   they were attacked and interrupted all of the  energy capabilities so lots of different types   what are the targets individuals businesses  and government they're very different types of   attacks different players if any of you want to  see an interesting interview of president obama   just about a month before he left office he was  interviewed and asked what are the biggest worries   that he sees for the nation number one issue  was cyber attacks it wasn't conventional warfare   and battles with xyz country it was cyber attacks  that would affect the infrastructure of the united   states it would affect the stock exchange  it would affect energy would affect water   etc the number one area so as much as we all  feel the individual cyber attack impact think   about what it would be on a national basis so it's  um it's huge with all this not being bad enough   what are two key trends to overlay on top of  all of this the number of connected devices so   wearable devices connected homes connected cars  etc that number is going to increase threefold   in the next 10 years there are now  about 25 billion connected devices   in the world going to about 75 billion they  provide a whole range of great services so   again the answer isn't well let's stop all the  connected devices but it's what do you do with   every single connected device being a potential  breach so that's a a key trend the second one   is remote working remote working is creating lots  of nightmares for big companies because of lack   of security of people working in remote areas  accessing company information and by the way for   all of you would say that we're going to go back  to this old environment of being in person every   single study that's been done recently saying that  is not true there's a study by mckinsey global   institute that surveyed ceos saying how many  people your employees want to go back in person   they kind of thought 60 70 percent wanted to go  back four days a week that number was inverse it   was maybe 25 30 percent actually want to go back  fully in person so in general the mode is people   want to work remote that is going to increase the  the challenge so what are the costs of all of this   there's huge financial costs of this right  so loss of money with attacks etc companies   have loss of productivity when they're  trying to deal with these issues they're   not developing products they're not serving  their customers etc you have reputational harm   so think of some of the big organizations yeah  the social security administration even think of   target stores that have this kind of question  now saying wait a minute you didn't protect   my information i don't trust you and if you're  in a corporate environment that trust is key to   future business to more information being shared  etc so reputational harm is big legal liability   is large target by the way and i think it was uh  four or five years ago now when they had their   breach of all the credit card info they are just  as a class action suit against them saying you   didn't manage data well they're just settling at  all now huge costs and again reputational impact   business continuity and then national security  as i mentioned the obama interview who owns the   problem again because of all these different types  of attacks individuals own it there's a certain   amount that says individuals caveat emptor they  need to be taking the right actions to protect   their information that's kind of one argument  one player businesses own it if they're viewed as   being irresponsible in this they're going to have  a huge problem industries you can make an argument   that industries get tarnished if one player  does something wrong so industries may have   a significant interest and then regulators and  ultimately governments elected uh officials so   what are some of the solutions there are a bunch  of technology-based solutions that are very   interesting so you know use fire to fight fire  here biometrics and two-factor authentication so   the ability to recognize uh via image recognition  or putting your thumb on a device or two-factor   authentication to protect your identity and  your interactions by the way many of these   have got concerns around them on data security  especially on image recognition very effective way   to identify somebody in most cases but yet creates  a separate problem if it's not administered and   developed in the right way artificial intelligence  so facebook when you're following i'm interviewing   roger mcnamee later this week it's going to  be a fascinating discussion he's got some   very clear views about how facebook has fouled  up well one of the articles that just came out   this week is saying facebook says you know we  can use artificial intelligence to identify   misinformation disinformation etc etc they just  had several their engineers come out and say you   know what it doesn't work it's not effective  enough yes it sounds good yes it's the future   but no it doesn't work right now so an interesting  dilemma but if you could get it to work you could   fight fire with fire behavioral analytics down  to an individual if you could understand regular   patterns of activity what somebody buys and when  they access the internet you could then use that   information say this is something unusual this  seems like somebody else is accessing somebody's   account again you could say there's some data  privacy issues there but it's also being used   to help eliminate cyber attacks blockchain digital  registries that can keep track of transactions and   ownership of content is viewed as being more  secure than many other areas that could be a   solution and then zero trust models overall saying  we're going to design our networks assuming we   can't trust anybody and that may be a potential  solution so what are some of the considerations   and this is my last slide and i hope it'll kind of  engender an interesting conversation is first of   all what are the roles and responsibilities here  so how much of the solution lies with individuals   how much of it actually lies with businesses how  much of it lies with government and generally my   ripe old age i've realized the world is a very  complex place there are no easy answers on a lot   of the stuff and the challenging issue is to look  at what the trade-offs are and how do you make   the best balance trade-off one of the questions  i'm going to pose to roger mcnamee even though i   i agree with many of the things he's saying is  facebook yeah we kind of have a u.s centric view  

of it but 80 90 percent of all their users are  in developing markets where the willingness to   pay is very low they're offering a free model  and for a long time they were helping democracy   in many places the arab spring as a example so  just saying well listen i want to do a paid model   and i'm okay with you know fewer users etc not  necessarily a good outcome so you want to look   at what are the roles of the different players  and when i was in the state department it's   always interesting what is the role of government  versus a multi-stakeholder which is government   industry civil society versus individuals we  may say government is great but remember not all   governments look like our government they may not  be democratic governments so when you're allowing   a government that's not democratic to access  information you do need to ask the question what   are they accessing that information for so not to  put a judgment that one thing is good or bad but   to think about what are the trade-offs and where  these solutions work and where do they not work   can businesses self-police so i love to challenge  my students it is absolutely easy to say bring   on the regulation mark zuckerberg's saying this  right now he's very shrewd bring on the regulation   because he knows we're in a politically divided  environment and there's going to be no decision   made that's substantive on areas of cyber security  so bring on the regulation it's a complete punt   so if you can self-regulate you got a much better  outcome can businesses self-regulate and eliminate   the chance for unintended consequences of  regulation is there enough capital going   into innovation hopefully the answer is yes if  the answer is yes you have more chance of good   solutions there are regulations and penalties  necessary this is where andrew and i are going   to have a great conversation is it necessary and  if you do say yes to that what are the unintended   consequences of that so roger mcnamee just said he  believes there should be an fda for all technology   products that approves all products and i thought  oh my god i just fell off my chair and thought   when you think of all the iterations and number  of products that technology companies develop   and to think that all of them are going to need  to be reviewed like a vaccine would be reviewed   think about what would happen to innovation  so thinking about these trade-offs to me is   a huge one and then the final and ultimate  one and lucy said this at the very beginning   how do you balance all of this how do  you get the best of technology which is   mostly change people's lives for the better and  still manage the the bad stuff and that bad stuff   can create bigger bad stuff but how do you balance  all of this together that to me is the is the holy   grail so let me stop on that i'm going to turn it  over to andrew uh lucy thank you for bringing us   together and look forward to a good conversation  uh thanks terry that was a great presentation   um i'm gonna focus on one little aspect of the  the who owns the problem and ask like what what   regulators what regulations what governments are  even supposed to do about this right so or first   i'll ask you know what do they do and and try to  think through what can be done right what's the   role of law here uh so the first thing to to think  about is that um when we think about regulating   i don't know information issues right people  tend to lump privacy data security and cyber   security all together including the law itself  tends to lump a lot of these things together   so a lot of the law are based on these idea  called the fair information practice principles   from you know 1973 adopted by the oecd in  1980 and basically became all of our sort of   data everything law and in there there are  you know issues of transparency um there are   there are issues about data minimization which  is one way to deal with a data security problem   before it becomes a problem and then there's like  security issues so it all gets lumped together   so the first thing just as a matter of terms right  when people talk about cyber security it's often   more the infrastructural denial of service attacks  and things like that um data security is often   about you know did your data escape right did you  get hacked or whatever um i know more about the   latter but the regulations tend to be the same and  i think what i'm gonna say is applying to both um   so here's the real challenge right everyone gets  hacked we have data breaches all the time always   and we can't get at the people doing the data  breaches right so often particularly in say the us   right the people who are actually creating or  stealing data who are doing the phishing attacks   or whatever are not in the u.s right so it's  not not really necessarily subject to us law um   are hard to find you can't find them you have  no idea who they are right so how on earth do   you go after them so this is the problem we're  starting with right we're saying everyone's   getting hacked lots of things going down and we  can't actually deal with the person responsible   and so the reason we're asking what um what to  do with businesses on this is because we're faced   with this sort of moral quandary of how much blame  do we lay at the feet of the business that in some   sense was a victim right they're the ones that  get hacked and they're the ones that get taken   down and lose people money as a result but they  get taken down they lose data they get um like   what what is it that's their fault and so that's  sort of the the real challenge in regulating   data security and to a degree cyber security um so  the way we do this is kind of a hodgepodge right   we don't have any sort of overarching regulation  there are a whole bunch of sources of this kind   of regulation so consumer protection law is one  where data is one in the u.s especially where uh   data is protected the federal trade commission  is the primary regulator over data security   and privacy in the u.s state attorneys general  also work with consumer protection law um and   can go after companies for letting themselves be  breached i'll talk about that more in a minute   uh there are some federal sectoral regulations  about this in healthcare in um in banking right   very specific sectors where we expect incredibly  sensitive data there are much more targeted   laws um there's data breach notification laws uh  every most states have them um in europe the gdpr   right has data breach notification laws that's one  of the ways they approach this um it's actually   kind of legally not really that interesting if the  laws tell you like or you have to notify after a   breach and the laws tell you like 24 hours or 72  hours and what size font you need on the form but   that's the thing that actually a lot of businesses  turns out care about because it's actually really   expensive and hurts the reputation of the company  so they're really important um there's there's a   lot of private ordering agreements right contract  law comes into place a lot of this i'll talk about   that more in a second um and then there's there's  a lot called the cfaa which is a computer fraud   and abuse act um that actually regulates hacking  it's like the one law that goes after the hackers   themselves um again not really gonna talk about  that that much because it turns out it's also used   that to go after security researchers who are  claimed to be hackers and that's what's in the   news more and that's what we had the supreme court  case a lot about last year and things like that   anyway okay whoo point is right huge distribution  of ways we regulate this and what do you make of   all that right what is the overall approach i  would say that the overall approach as a result   is we can't is to go back to this point that  we can't necessarily always blame the business   and so we need to figure out how and when we're  allowed to blame businesses right so that gets to   two ideas one is reasonableness um in my first day  of my torts class i tend to put up this slide that   i wish i had the meme up here i did not prepare  enough um in advance to get you this meme but   there's this meme that some of you might have seen  with like this building falling down and being   propped up and it says the entire american legal  system and down here is like the word reasonable   um it's true though the entire american legal  system rests really really hard on the word   reasonable and this is no difference right so  first we want to ask what is reasonable what is   reasonable in protecting people against hacks  against data security breaches against cyber   security breaches right and the other one is is a  compliance framework right so maybe we can't maybe   it's too fact intensive to say were you being  reasonable in this particular instance and say we   just don't we don't have the way to evaluate that  instead we're going to say here are the practices   that you should be doing if you're in compliance  with them fine right so those are really overall   the two approaches that get mirrored throughout  a whole bunch of different types of law   so let me tell you about some of those specific  areas of law right so the biggest one and when   we talk about innovation hey the government  innovates the last 15 or so years the federal   trade commission has been using their authority  to police um unfair and deceptive practices to   go after companies that um don't do anything on  data security right so they've become a de facto   privacy uh security regulator we don't have one in  the u.s right in europe and in a lot of the rest  

of the world there are data protection authorities  that are charged specifically with doing this kind   of work in the u.s we do not have that so the ftc  has taken on that role now the ftc gets to do this   because their remit is to um is to regulate unfair  and deceptive practices that affect commerce which   is basically as broad as it sounds right um and  so what they've taken that to mean is that these   data security practices when you um come in and  don't do anything and then get hacked is unfair   to the consumers that gave you their data with an  with an assumption that you would do something to   protect their data right in this day and age  we know this happens you got to do something   right so their approach their approach um is that  well because they getting technical in a second   but they lack really good rule making authority  so they use enforcement right so they go after   people they enforce they bring cases against the  worst of the worst actors um one famous case that   actually most i'll say most of the cases settle  right they settle and there's a consent decree   right an agreement that the ftc remains uh retains  jurisdiction for 20 years uh they report make some   reports for anywhere between two and five years  they implement a security program they appoint a   data protection officer there are all these pretty  standard things that go into an ftc settlement   agreement and they don't admit liability um but  so there's this thing that keeps happening right   the ftc lays out what it what they did wrong they  admit to none of it but over time we get an idea   of what it is the ftc is expecting you to do and  some people have called this a quasi-common law   which makes sense right at the same time  these are like the things you don't do the   worst of the worst they also have a guideline  document that's like here's what you should do   please pay attention to this and then nobody  does anyway so some of these cases get litigated   rarely uh there's one called ftcv windham which  wyndham hotels challenged the ftc's authority to   do data security regulation at all because again  no one said they could do it right they just said   it's unfair to consumers and we get to say  what's unfair to consumers right so the ft's   window hotels came and said hey we had no  notice this was unfair um like this is beyond   your remit what are you doing like this is you  know you can't possibly hold us against this   or hold this against us and the third circuit came  back and said what the hell are you doing in court   you guys got hacked three times um you didn't have  firewalls your passwords were one two three four   um not literally the last one i actually don't  remember what it was basically you just didn't   change your passwords and that's the thing right  the ftc is not it's weird they've innovated a lot   on this but they've also been like not super out  on a limb on a lot of these things they'll only go   after actors that are the worst of the  worst because they don't want to lose cases   and so what we have is a great description of  these cases of things you absolutely should like   bars you should clear that are below the floor  somewhere and a guidance document and everything   in the middle it says to businesses go figure it  out right go do what's reasonable their baseline   here is reasonable right that's their whole idea  and there was another case that came out um a   couple years ago called labmd um where labmd  said that's i don't know what's reasonable how   the hell am i supposed to know what to do and  this is a weird case they also challenged the   ftc's authority the judge kind of dodged that  issue but the judge came back and said yeah by   not telling the business how to improve their  security you're micromanaging the business anyway um nothing seems to have changed after  that opinion uh they said like these broad   remedial orders the ftc came out whatever nobody  really knows what the effect of that opinion is   it was 2018 the ftc seems to be proceeding  um on its course but this is all recent   developments right we don't we don't exactly  know what's going for it so that's one way   right reasonableness also comes out in negligence  lawsuits right the reasonableness negligence   that's like those are synonyms basically  right so these these suits like like target   um uh class action suits where people are settling  for billions of dollars potentially uh they're   essentially negligent suits right and you could  again you can claim negligence with any kind of   any kind of injury um financial injury is  usually the big one um and so negligent   suits are another way that we can uh that the law  tries to regulate these things individual suits   face difficult problems and this is where we run  into the the supreme court's doctrine of standing   um and for those of you who are not law students  that may not know what standing is it essentially   means you have to have what is referred to as a  concrete and particularized injury in order to   be heard at least in federal court states have  similar obligations sometimes not completely   what is a concrete and particularized injury well  the supreme court came back last year with another   case that tried to tell us a little bit more it  was a case where the fair credit reporting act   made it um a violation to have the wrong piece  of it have an incorrect piece of information   about you in a credit report and not be able to to  fix it right so the plaintiff in that case had um   had credit reports there was a class action they  had credit reports claiming they were terrorists   and they said that's not okay please fix it and  the people essentially laughed at them right   um and the supreme court came back and said yeah  unless they gave your credit report to a third   party that read you were a terrorist you don't  have standing um because even though congress said   you have standing to the tune of 1500 dollars of  damages for every violation that's not a concrete   enough injury now where does this come to a data  security question well it turns out if people are   hacked right it's not clear whether your data  going to someone else is necessarily an injury   right if your social security number is out there  in the world first of all it's already out there   in the world so one more time i don't know um but  like if it's out there in the world and you don't   get your identity stolen have you suffered an  injury and this is turns out circuit courts   are split on this right so in some sense the  risk of harm is itself a the increased risk of   harm is a legally cognizable injury right you  have to protect yourself you have to get um   you have to have credit monitoring services and  things like that you have to spend money on it   other cases have said no this is just speculative  this is just a risk of harm and this is an issue   that's teed up in the future with this case that  came down nobody really knows what's going on   with an individual lawsuit um let's see so the  last substantive uh thing i want to talk about   are these private ordering schemes right and  so this is goes to the question of like can   can industries self-police right so there are  lots of um individual private ordering schemes   out there uh the the payment card industry right  has the pci data security standard um which is   enforced by you know collection of like the five  major credit card companies and ultimately every   contract that uh that a pay uh payment system uses  and adopts has this language that they opt in to   this um pci data security scheme right so it's not  legally enforceable from without but the industry   has created a situation such that every contract  says you must abide by the existing standard right   so it's using law to help an industry self-police  right so that's a really interesting different   kind of model that gives individual agent like  industries much more agency over it there's also   vendor management frameworks right there are kind  of standardized ideas out there that if you hire a   if you hire a vendor you create clauses in your  contracts that are going to make them liable for   any breaches they claw they cause right and when  you're actually i mean when you get employed as a   lawyer doing privacy and data security work that's  a lot of what you do is vendor management um stuff   because that's such a really important  part of how this gets regulated is   through private law private law is another another  way of um addressing some of these issues uh and   but i guess the the ultimate question is uh  given the different contexts for different uh   data security and um cyber security given what's  needed is so different in each different context   right and we need flexibility in order to figure  out what standards should apply and how we even   think about the fault of the sort of intermediate  hacked player right we need to think about all   the different ways that we might actually like  have law support um business in creating the   and essentially self-policing part of it i haven't  even gotten to the political reality that we can't   pass a lot of laws so maybe we just need to come  up with other ways to allow self-policing the big   question at least for me here is whether  market incentives are um are there right   a lot of this discussion of so reasonableness  what is the content of reasonableness it often   comes from existing industry standards right we  draw the law even when it does do enforcement   draws on existing industry standards and yet hacks  are happening all the time there are a million   data breaches every day so if market incentives  can get it to work right if we don't need outside   regulation why haven't we done it yet and i don't  know the answer to this right like i don't know   um i think it said for a while that data security  people didn't take it seriously until it became a   c-suite problem right and but now it is but how  much of it is right how much are can a business   just get away with not caring uh i don't know and  so i think these are a lot of open questions or   what form of legal regulation can it take and you  know law versus markets like what what what can   work can reputational harm even do if everybody's  getting breached right does it really hurt that   much i don't know um so i think i think the  questions you're going to end up having to answer   are kind of related to these so i think that's a  good time to leave off um so thank you everyone so for the next 15 minutes or 20 minutes  or so we'd like to open this up to you   too for questions for the two professors  so let me invite you to do that and i'll start with the first question while  you're thinking of of so the question i have   after listening to both of you in this this  wonderful controversy as to who owns the   problem and how should the problem who should be  responsible for resolving the problem is what if   we moved away from the concept of negligence  and move to strict liability as an experiment   and say for the next five years or next decade  any retailer who is the subject of a breach   and of course you could put some qualifications  around that but it's the subject of a breach   is strictly liable right so there's no  more controversy you don't have to go into   you have to go to court but there's not there are  no defenses right will that create the incentives   that the businesses need so that i think professor  cramer's view that businesses might be the better   uh place to find a solution than government or  would that create the incentives for them yeah   my initial reaction is it's a blunt instrument  so you've got to be able to have a business see   the impact on its consumers you have to have  a business feel as if there's a reasonable   effort that they can take to solve a problem so  in this situation this cyber security you know the   the challenges the risks the the cleverness  of the hackers is getting pretty notable   much greater than i would submit than  the capabilities of companies right now   so there's got to be a reasonableness range you  use your term again but reasonableness range also   for what a company can do and also what actions  you know when i was in the state department we   always talked about unintended consequences of  policy because policy in the abstract always   seems great but they have to say okay now how does  a chess game play out here and if companies say   listen you know based on that liability i'm not  going to get into this business i'm not going to   provide this service i'm going to add pricing i'm  going to raise pricing to a comedy for all this   then you've harmed the consumer in essence so i  worry about the blunt instrument i would rather   go back to seeing naughty behavior of business  people i remember we used to sign contracts we'd   always say you know if in doubt add the term uh  uh willful misconduct or gross negligence those   are the two most basic things as a business  person i would remember if that's happened   you've got you've got a legitimate so that would  be my initial reaction to the scenario you posed   yeah i mean i i actually mostly agree um  i mean i think you know random executions   are also something if you could decrease the  probability that you get randomly executed   um it will create an incentive not to do certain  things oh i'm in favor of those two yeah right   but fundamentally i feel like strict liability  for data breaches amounts to a degree to a   probabilistic execution right like the the kind  of damages we're talking about could make or break   companies um and if they can't do anything about  it then it's almost like it's so bad that you   kind of have to give in and doesn't create the  incentive to try to do anything about it you   just recognize that there's a five percent chance  that you're just going to not exist next year and   you have to live within the shadow of that maybe  there's a new maybe it increases cyber insurance   um and makes that a much more right much more  applicable thing just what has any company any   significant company been broken by these these  kinds of lawsuits i don't think so because there's   cyber insurance cyber insurance is not as far  as i understand not like very easy to get and   i i don't know i might be out of my depth on that  one if you can tell us more about fiber insurance   i think well you historically have been able to  get it so i don't know if that's changed all right   yeah opening it up uh my question is based on  recent experience um so i worked for a law firm   over the summer that's in the tech industry  and we had of course training talk about how   their first second third and fourth concerns were  phishing attacks right you get an email that says um that says hi it's me your  boss what's your password maybe   take a second look at that email i think  we also see every day that a pretty   visible source of cyber concern is misinformation  by hostile state actors so this is leading to the   question is our problem really technical  barriers or vulnerable machines or is it   more exploitable people and are those two  problems actually that closely connected uh i mean i i think if you talk to security  professionals people are always the answer um   right they're almost always the weakest link and  i mean and like there's only so much training   can do but ultimately it's social attacks  are just much more common and hard to   hard to deal with i mean they've i think  they've probably got gotten better over time as   general awareness has increased but a one cyber  security training for half an hour every year   maybe it does something um but doesn't do enough  of it yeah no i i agree and i you know the   companies have a responsibility to know that most  consumers are not well educated on a variety of   issues so they have to kind of assume that people  aren't understanding and trained to that level   and to test and and to follow up on it so i think  there's a fair amount that companies do own and   would be willing to own on that hi thanks so  much my question is about complacency so it   seems like you know the alarm bells are getting  louder and louder from leaders in business and   government especially um relating to what we  need to do now about cyber security concerns um   at the same time now that like ever like as you  said everyone's been hacked um you know there's   all these things on internet websites that at this  point i'm just kind of like used to like ignoring   to be perfectly honest the uc um attack i kind of  ignored those emails for a while it's so common so   is that going to affect sort of what the responses  are if that sort of mentality becomes pervasive   in our society it just seems like right  now it's still like do we need a huge   awful event to happen before people take this  more seriously or maybe i'm just sort of a   you know lazy about that kind of thing yeah you  know it's interesting maybe it's glass half full   or half empty i actually think that people are  more concerned and more aware now on a variety of   these issues than they ever were so if you look at  social media as an example the concern about your   information and what's getting shared etc i think  people are pretty worked up and concerned on that   i think what happened with facebook on the the  russian interference with the elections and   what happened in january 6th i think people are  pretty aware of that i just think the challenges   are getting greater but i don't think people are  complacent i think companies are more aware i   sit on a variety of boards and the concerns  and the liability on cyber security issues   now is a discussion at a board room it's just the  number of incidents and a tax is getting greater   and that's why i'm a bit more excited about  the technology-based solutions that can be   scaled that can be used to understand all the  nuance at lower cost i think that ultimately   is going to be the best protection even more  than training you know customers and employees   uh yeah i i mean i i mostly agree i mean i  could see i can see it going in a sense in   either direction i think i think that's right  that right now there's a lot more awareness a   lot more concern than there used to be um so i i  don't know i mean i think like in in industry you   have companies often moving lockstep right like  not wanting to be the first out there um a lot of   the time not wanting to stick their neck out but  that goes in both directions right if nobody's   doing anything in an industry then there's  then there's cover to not do anything but if   certain people are out there really concerned then  your industry potentially moves along with them   and at least the trend seems to be that people are  more concerned um but i'm not sure that that's uh   like if they're not paying more financial  penalties over time right when these hacks   happen and they're increasing then it's not  clear to me that that is a trend that will   necessarily continue um so i don't know i think i  have a follow-up on adam's question a little bit   and that our firm similarly had like the trainings  on that but something that our it group did was   they would randomly send out phishing emails  to us um to test us basically and so it kind   of kept us sharp right so maybe that is like  the people's weakest link aspect of it um i was   curious about i guess like two different questions  and one might go uh more professor kramer and one   might go more to professor salps but i think it  seems like there's been a shift away from minimal   viable product testing um lately we've been trying  to get things to market as fast as possible and   because of that i feel like we could be doing some  of this testing early on and perhaps that would   be a way to use tech to kind of like create this  self-regulating aspect of it but i am curious also   at the later end of things if if maybe it doesn't  require fda type disclosure but couldn't there   also be some sort of regulatory solution at  the later stages that say is running these   tests that has people that are actually trained  to do that kind of the way that my firm's i.t   department did so i guess first first side  different may be on the minimum viable product   and then the second side to professor yeah um i'm  sure the speed of product releases is part of the   problem i wouldn't rate it as the number one issue  i don't think you know people can say i'm rushing   through so i'm gonna eliminate the cyber security  risk i think most innovators don't know what they   don't know because the types of attacks that are  happening are changing so rapidly and new means i   mean look at some of the most quote-unquote  conservative organizations you know our us   government and they're getting breached as well so  i don't know if it's the the speed of things and   just to be provocative for a second you  know i worry that some of these actions   again create negative outcomes and let me  give an example it's not cyber security but   it's just general data and technology you look at  autonomous vehicles and i always remember we had   raj kapoor speak a year or so ago as the chief  strategy officer at lyft and made the case for   autonomous vehicles with ride sharing so basically  the average person only uses their vehicle   four percent of the time they spend 750 dollars  a month to support that car and that car costs in   aggregate with all the other cars in the us 40 000  deaths a year almost all of them are human related   so the extent of what you say hey listen i want to  make sure autonomous vehicles are picture perfect   it's very noble and very exciting but every day  and every week and every month you're waiting 40   000 people die so i think it's it's a bit  dangerous to to slow the wheels down too   much excuse the pun because you're creating  again the loss of benefit of the innovation   i would go back to whether you're seeing something  that's egregious in nature so if i look at tech   companies as an example we tend to kind of lump  them all together and i think this is what's so   unfair it's a little bit of bias in its own form  because we assume they're all kind of evil and   they all do this and that there's a spectrum of  to me people that have been much more societally   focused than others candidly i put facebook at  the worst end um they're trying to do things but   they've had multiple warnings it's like an  employee that isn't performing well and you've   had them on a performance plan and then you kind  of well i'll look the other way and let me keep   them on let me keep them on camera and you just  kind of argue your way into never doing anything   that's been them because they've had cambridge  analytica they've had the russian interference   they've had january 6 blah blah blah you  have a bunch of companies that are really   trying to address issues mark benny off at  salesforce he is all about the north star and   that flows into all the product design for what  they're doing with einstein and their use of ai   etc they're to me a very very good company  you look at google even and they get a lot   of criticism i had susan wojcicki who's the ceo  of youtube speak and she talked about content   moderation on their platform i was very impressed  and she went through the criteria they used the   people in the organization that own it she went  through the statistics of what's been taken down   etc etc etc so this is why i worry a little  bit kind of this like let's slow things down   and everybody's kind of been irresponsible  i worry that's creating more net negative um   and not acknowledging some of the the good acts  that are being uh uh seen now so here we're   finally gonna get to some disagreement um okay  so the first thing i'll say on security right the   there's no perfect security that's just a sort of  a baseline like it's a defensive strategy and so so no matter what you're gonna get like i mean  a lot of the hacks that we've we've seen of   like apple right uh um recently are like zero  day attacks they're doing their best and still   you're gonna find things that we could argue about  whether they should have caught but they don't and   the question is what do they do to respond how  quickly do they patch it and things like that   so there's a question of you know how quickly  you move things and do you test beforehand but   what might look like you're shipping things  too early might also just be that hackers have   gotten very good at this at the same time um and  this is i'm gonna jump on a little soapbox here   we don't spend enough time talking about whether  stuff works um like just works in a basic sense   i'm in the middle of a uh we're writing a  paper right now with some computer scientists   talking about ai and ml and a lot of people  are talking about bias and discrimination   um and literally the paper if you'll excuse me  this bleep doesn't work it's like the title of the   paper at the moment because there's a very basic  question of like is this functional and part of   insecurity has to be part of the conversation  of what it means for something to be functional   and so i don't know i mean to to one way to deal  with that's actually to move to a strict liability   framework maybe but if we're thinking about what  negligence is or i guess i should say in law right   we're used to thinking about whether something  is functional in product liability regimes   right so for something like an autonomous  vehicle we could potentially talk about that   but in a case we are not actually suing in  product liability the idea that a judge will go   under the hood and ask what you designed for what  you tested for and things like that is something   that it's really hard to do because lawyers are  afraid of tech they think these tech wizards know   what they're doing they see a device that's a  black box they don't want to sort of under like   look under the hood they don't think they  have the ability to do so in a lot of ways   product liability is the one area where like we  ask about the design but in a lot of other areas   we don't ask what kind of testing you did is it  enough um what are the standards and this is the   approach that we we have and we need more of the  basic question of like did you test enough ah we're gonna these should be the last three so  that we can try hi it's kind of a follow-up   to that so the california tried to go on the  law side a little bit because the california   consumer privacy act they they tried to kind  of come up with like you said a framework of   here's my data here's what you can do with  it here's what you can't do with it here's   here's how long you keep it things like that do  you see that in california a lot of times leads   you know do we see that going federal  do we see that going to other states   you know it's kind of gdpr light from what i  you know and so and it kind of it kind of falls   right in the middle i think between both of you so  just love to hear your thoughts yeah go ahead so   the there are the last two years or so there have  been a bunch of states that have passed various   data data privacy laws right there's uh california  past two of them somehow in the span of two years   um and then washington virginia colorado have  all passed these laws they're all slightly   different um washington looks most like the gdpr  because because microsoft already did their best   gdpr implementation and wants that to be the  regulation um and you know other states have had   other approaches to things the more individual  states there are the more businesses are going   to push for federal regulation that preempts  state law and makes it all null um i don't know   there's a big fight the preemption is the big  fight right so the degree to which federal law   overrides and makes null um individual state laws  is is going to be the big fight for the question   and i think for for um public interest advocates  for like civil society that's a sticking point   that they're to the extent they have any  pull at all right progressive so this that   they have any pull at all are fighting against  this preemption idea one possibility and sorry   if there's no preemption it's possible we don't  get a federal law because businesses don't want   just another kind of regulation um one possibility  in environmental law actually they grandfathered   california and preempted the rest when they  passed um federal environmental laws maybe there's   something like that but that seems unlikely the  so the future's uncertain but i would say it's   more likely than ever that we get some sort of  federal law what it looks like and whether it   actually happens given we can't get any federal  law right now yeah pick him yeah so terry i'm   going to stop you for a moment okay because i  want to get the other these up sorry sure right so as everyone asked was asking questions i  have now five more questions but i'll stick   to my one that i had when i came up so within  like a technology-based company especially if   they're looking to target cybersecurity as one  of their branches they have a lot of different   things that they need to follow which go through  lawyers it goes through tech specialists subject   matter experts expec experts etc so how much of  and of course the government is doing their fair   share to combat hackers and other breaches that  companies are facing so how much of this growth   in cyber security especially over the last five  ten years and into the future do you feel like   it's going to be driven by the government  versus customers and consumers of technology   yeah so i believe it's gonna be more by  customers and people that are adversely   affected because again i think at the end of  the day if people feel their data is at risk   they will walk with their feet and they'll leave  and they'll not use products and and services so   i think that's going to be the biggest driver  of concern out there then the related question   what you're asking is what should companies be  doing in this area and to me the most impressive   companies when you look at their core product  design teams they're very much focused on how   the product should work what are the unintended  consequences you see this a lot with bias and ai   they're looking at how the product actually is  working in practice they're looking at target   user groups etc i think there's going to be more  of that that is going to drive the future and i   think to andrew's point although i'm not going  to speak for you but then his point there's a   certain amount of limitation that you know uh  legal action and regulatory action can take   and at some point you got to be symbolic and  assume that companies are going to get the   message and take action thank you final final  question so sorry this is probably a bit of a   philosophical question for the last question but  i think um professor kramer you had mentioned   several times that innovation is always good but  we've been on a long-term trend of inequality so   i would wonder how you'd reconcile that and  for example with autonomous vehicles and cars   yes cars create a lot of accidents autonomous  vehicles but we had solutions it was public   transportation which obviously um there have been  some issues with amtrak but that would have been   a way to you know have less people in charge  and probably mitigate a lot of those accidents   um but we had business come in and it's  very famous in la but get you know rid of   the rail cars etc so innovation doesn't  always mean progress it would seem so how do   you kind of uh reconcile that and to go to the  law aspect it seems like a lot of tech companies   you know your airbnbs and your ubers  basically create businesses that try to   leapfrog over regulation with tech in order to  circumvent existing consumer protections so how do   we kind of get to a point where people are being  protected and innovation is actually progressing   yeah great question so and it's a philosophical  question i'm going to give you my own view on   this so first of all um and don't take away from  this evening i'm saying innovation is all good i'm   saying innovation does a lot of good things and  in aggregate does a lot of great things but there   are a bunch of negative externalities so what my  message is is in most cases technology is going   to be able to drive costs down and it automates  and gets rid of jobs etc and that's partly how it   drives costs down it often will improve  outcomes when you think about the use of data   and judgment on data think about diagnostic tools  and health care to be able to detect early onset   of alzheimer's to be able to understand somebody's  likely to have cardiovascular disease etc you need   a fair amount of data in a technology environment  to really drive better outcomes there so i'm   saying in aggregate it creates good things but not  in every case then this gets to the issue of what   do you do with the inequalities because most of  these technology-based solutions are job killers   so i tell my students when i look at their team  projects that they do eighty percent of their team   projects are job killers it's basically how they  get to the roi that they need to um that would   allow a customer to buy whatever it is they're  so they're uh using but to say okay well don't   advance the technology don't advance the solution  to me is throwing the baby out with the bath water   that the next question is what do you do to ensure  that the inequity isn't out of control and so then   that gets into what's the job of a business when  their job losses how much retraining do they do   when you look at the issue of autonomous vehicles  take truck drivers a fascinating stat here by the   way there's four million truck drivers in the u.s  when you look at the percent of population that   are involved in truck driving in joplin missouri  the number's 10 times higher than the number in   los angeles is so the net job loss is going  to be in joplin missouri it's not going to be   here so what is the obligation of businesses to  create jobs in those areas to retrain people and   ultimately what do you do with income disparity  so if everything works in the future model   what you should have is a society that has lower  costs of health care which is one of the biggest   expenses lower costs of transportation the cost  of living our life should go down our income in   aggregate is probably going to go down because  again of automation and that's the question is   how do you create equity in compensation now this  gets more political and philosophical i personally   believe we're gonna have to get to universal basic  income or some solution like that so my aggregate   solution is don't stop the technology it's going  to do some great things but you better be ready   to step up for managing what are going to be the  inequalities including redistribution of wealth   including hiring people etc that would be the  final most important message i could leave you   it's so easy to take again the absolutist  positions stop the technology we're in we   have a bad health care system we don't have great  outcomes we have a lot of people that don't have   insurance don't stop the technology solutions in  the in the process figure out how do you deal with   the the negative externalities thank you i'll give  you one minute yeah just one quick thing i mean uh   what you're the way you sort of moved from asking  a question about autonomous vehicles to a question   about sort of transportation and inequities  right the answer to bring it full circle to   what uh terry started with is like what's the  problem how are you gonna solve it the problem   framing is the answer right like widening the  lens thinking about context how you frame problems   um leads to how you end up like what solutions you  end up with and so i think the battle i mean like   the the battle for equity the battle for justice  is never ending it's it's like it's just a battle   you either commit to or don't you fight forever  and it's constantly a question of trying to get um   the most good uh trying to get equitable outcomes  and often it involves asking different questions   that are being asked just the way you posed you  posed the question moving from a question about   autonomous vehicles to a broader we need to  solve a transportation system in a way that   advantages all people um that's a great  move so i would say keep doing that   right that exact reframe problems ask different  questions thank you both so we have some questions who was just wondering if we can bring pieces um  of regulation under a single umbrella in other   words have one single regulatory body owning a  problem end to end such as the sec chairman sulps   i don't think so um and the answer is the reason  is context i mean i'm looking over here but i   guess i should look at the camera um the answer is  context right like every sector um is so different   the kinds of problems the kinds of threats they  face the kinds of data they work with the sizes   of organizations crea creates very different  like approaches what they can afford to spend   um what kind how much data they need to guard um  you can have a combination of an overall

2021-11-07 20:29

Show Video

Other news