Jack Goldsmith: "The United States is Losing the Digital Cold War" | Talks at Google

Jack Goldsmith:

Show Video

Professor. Goldsmith, teaches. At the Harvard Law School he, is the henry. Shallick professor. Over, there and he's, also a senior fellow at, the Hoover Institution. While, I was in Boston I took a class with him I'm Bruce Schneier, and I. Then, became, acquainted, with his work, from. The legal perspective that. Is relevant to a lot of the things that we do here in security and privacy. So, with that I'll turn it to professor. Goldsmith, thanks. For coming today I'm, grateful to be here my. Talk is the. United States is losing the digital Cold War I'm. Going, to collect. A bunch of facts and arguments that you've all heard before and that you're more familiar with than I am probably, but. To suggest. Some. Larger, patterns that I think haven't been sufficiently, appreciated and, some. Of the implications, for, how, I think the United States is ultimately, going to have to change the United States government, I don't speak for its companies maybe. You can tell me about that in the question and answer about, how the US government will. Have to change its international, posture so. The. Cold War is basically, as I'm. Describing. It but it's a fight over. What. The network's inside countries look like and the, United States has a particular, vision which I'm going to talk about in a second and at. The other extreme are the China's and Russia's and, Iran's of the world who, have a particular vision and somewhere in the middle is the United Nations my excuse me the European Union and. There's. A fight, going on it's it's on the surface but it's also happening, more. Vigorously, below the surface about. What networks looked like both in these. Countries and in these geographies. And. These. Countries and geographies has views about how they look in other countries, the. United States vision. The. Secretary, Clinton gave a speech Secretary. Of State Clinton gave a speech in January of 2010. Stating. What she describes as the State Department's open Internet. Agenda. Or Internet freedom agenda and it. Really if the speech got a lot of coverage as, something new and important, but in fact it represents. The United States view about, internet. Regulation globally. Going, back to the 1990s. These. Are the main tenets, there, it sits there in favor of the United States is in favor of free. Flow of information across, borders. Generally. Against censorship on networks, generally, against, blocking online services, and most types of takedown. The. Exception, is largely for intellectual property. Against. Burdensome, internet. Regulations. The. Internet freedom initiative, was designed to push all of these. Positions. Globally, and also, beyond. That to. Subsidise. To pay for and subsidize and. To. Proliferate. And distribute. Tools. And, authoritarian, states that allowed activists, to circumvent. Control. On digital networks in those nations that was an important part of the initiative to try to help literally, you bring the technology to, activists, in other countries to. Help them circumvent, the control in those networks. Clinton. Said in her speech that of course we, can't have all of these freedoms without robust cybersecurity so that was an important part of this and she. Said we should try to create international norms, to guarantee this now.

These Are these are familiar principles, because they're basically Google's principles, this. Is from a 2013, paper, and. The. The. U.s. vision is basically the, US government's vision is basically Google's vision is basically, the large. IT industry, global. IT industries centered mostly, here's vision. And. So. There's, really not much difference as far as I can tell between your vision and this vision of, the US government they've been pushing for 20 years and that you've been pushing as, far as I can tell since you've been founded. The. Vision is in tatters is what I'm going to argue, it's. In tatters because. Nations. Increasingly, and successfully. Are imposing control. Digital, borders, and foreclosing, composed, imposing. Control on. Networks. Within their borders this, is nothing new it's been happening for a while even, though twenty, years ago we were told it was impossible but, it's got I think, authoritarian, states have become more and more successful at this which is contrary to what a lot of people predicted. This. Digital control abroad is, having an impact in the United States this is the example of the right to be forgotten I'll come back to this example but. Sometimes, digital, control abroad such as Europe's attempt to impose a right to be forgotten rule on, Google if they, order Google there's a big case in Europe now, to. Take down, certain. Data not just on servers, on Google, in. France, or, in Europe but globally, that's what this debate is about can Europe in effect impose a, global, rule on Google and if they can then they are in effect, affecting. Freedom, internet freedom here in the United States and finally. As the elections. Show but that's only one example, adversaries. Exploit Internet openness in the United States and more generally, well. Let's, just say those are the three sort, of main pieces, of evidence that this agendas, and tatters and I'm gonna talk about this and why. It's happened. To. Hit these are the three reasons why, the, event is a failure, and. I don't know the extent to which you appreciate, this especially if you're in the United States but the, United States talks, about Internet freedom and, Internet, openness, but. It is both, it's government, and it's firms widely, seen as the biggest bully on the block when. It comes to. Malicious. Activity, in the network starting, with the, militarization of the network Stuxnet, it's the greatest example but there's as.

President, Obama bragged and his press conference at the his last press conference at the end of the year no nation, has. More. Powerful, offensive weapons, digital. Weapons in the United States and it appears that no nation has is, using, them as. Robustly, although, that's now in question since we received from the receiving end of a lot of it. The. Snowden, revelations it's, hard to exaggerate how. Much the Snowden revelations would, for two years after Clinton's speech, really. Just. Was widely viewed as exposing. The, open Internet agenda. Of the United States as a sham since. It showed that the United States was inside. Digital. Networks throughout the world, breaking. Into endless, numbers of systems extracting, information and using it for various reasons and, if. There's, one event that. Increased. The backlash against this initiative I would say it's the Snowden. The. Snowden revelations. Finally. US. Firms are viewed as imperialist. Arms of the US government, I'm, not sure this is true of consumers, but, certainly in Europe the government's, view. U.s., firms as, imposing, their particular us, vision, of the, Internet on, on. Their. Countries in ways that affect their culture and affects their norms it affects their. Fundamental, commitments, so, one. Big. Reason why this initiative is fails because people don't like it they. Don't like it and they think the United States is hypocritical the. Second two reasons are what I'm going to focus on the rest of my talk that the United States simply can't. Has. Been unsuccessful in, in. Imposing, openness, abroad in other countries, and that openness at home is increasingly, not all it's cracked up to be. So. I'm, not going to go to detail about this but. Just. Looking at China China has I, wrote a book with Tim Wu ten, years ago I called, who controls the Internet and we had a chapter about China and how. China had ten, years ago pretty successfully. Despite. Predictions widespread. Predictions to the contrary. And. Despite, the fact that there was a flourishing, internet, in thirst flourishing Internet activity in China that. China had brought pretty good control through various techniques filtering, at the border lots of monitoring, inside and a. Riot e of other techniques a lot censorship, inside. Monitoring. Inside enforcement. Of laws inside the in the country that has a deterrent effect on others, China. Has only gotten much much better at, controlling its networks in the last decade, since I wrote that book and these, are some of the many reasons is there some of the many ways that nations, have. Used. To, in effect, impose. The will that they want I'm talking about authoritarian, states here impose their, view, of what's acceptable and not acceptable behavior, on the net so. Filtering. At the wall China. Just has, is. Is, implementing. It's still not clear how successful, this will be but it appears that it might be successful, an internet, identity registration.

Program And having social, social, credit system, attached to that that. Can be used for all sorts of methods of social control including control in the network, surveillance. Wiretapping. Censorship. Denial. Of information, access or accessing, information inside. The user that the state is either the, computers, of the or the devices, that, the state wants to control, the. States have gotten good, at, temporarily. Shutting off the internet taking content down from the internet slowing, down the internet shutting, down cell towers when necessary and interrupting, the communications, they want they. Have ramped, up laws and, actions. Against, tools, designed, to circumvent these. These. These crackdown, methods. They're. In that they're trying to develop homegrown, platforms, to replace foreign platforms, over which they have more control, this. Next bullet point is so much of the same they used. Law, to. Go. After authors, and dissidents, and journalists. In a way that has a significant, deterrent effect on, speech in the country and there's. Regional, coordination about this, the. Shanghai Cooperation, Organization. I think that's what it's called is an. Organization, primarily with China and Russia but India and Pakistan just, joined and it's, an organization, and their other nations, that is designed, to. Basically. To. Package. These norms and promote them as part, of the global order it's, basically an organization that's. Over and against Western Europe and the United States but. They are coordinating, and trying to export this vision now, in. The, Arab Spring many, people thought that. Social. Media I mean let me just give me just say that the last note encryption. Alters. Methods of control and many people thought and again I'm not going to tell anyone in this room in fact I can learn from everyone in this room about this. Encryption. Was thought to and. It does enable. Confidential. Communications, that the state has a hard time, getting. At but, the stay there's a, report by my colleagues in the Berkman Center Harvard. Just. This summer that. Showed that encryption, presents, a problem for states but they found techniques, to deal, with it including, this entire list as substitute. Ways of control, plus. Encryption. If. At, least encrypted, communications, from abroad it makes it as. I understand, it impossible for. The state to filter out at the site level but. Not at the platform, level so they can keep Wikipedia, out of the country if they want even if they can't block particular, pages so, what encryption does is it forces the state to make a choice and all-or-nothing choice some. States have made that choice the. Point is is that crypt encryption, is not the the killer, thing. That's going to bring the states to their knees they have other methods of imposing control within. Within. Their borders, so. The Arab Spring is a pretty good example. It. Seemed, to be coordinated, by social media it seemed, that, social media is what enabled, the organization. And collaboration. Of. The protests, inside authoritarian. Inside. The Middle Eastern countries and North. African countries where it took place. It, was though there was a question at the time about how much this, movement was really, internet. Enabled and how much it was something else but, the. Key point is that the authoritarian, States learned from that experience and. Frankly. In a lot of cases they're using the network against the dissidents, they are attacking. Them back and using the the network as a way to monitor, the distance but the point is is that there's been a ton of learning, and in.

Ton Of learning about how to control. Social. Media in these states to the extent the states want to use them and as. Ron, Deibert, said these oratory, and regimes have proven themselves surprisingly. And dismaying ly light footed and adaptable, at, controlling internet and social media and using, them for some of the ways I said in the previous slide to. Assert control so. This. Is, a. Freedom. House study you can't obviously see the country's very well but and these, are qualitative, judgments, about the, extent, of Internet freedom in the country that talks, about access, content, control. Unlawful. Surveillance or. Surveillance and. Like and. The. Purple countries are not. Free, the, yellow countries, are partially, free the green countries, are free. By these qualitative, standards without. Getting into the details and again, this is a qualitative, study it's not the most rigorous study but it is the most rigorous study cuz it's the only study of its kind but it's not terribly, rigorous it's very qualitative, but. But, using their qualitative, standards they've said every year in the last six years that freedom, has declined and in any number of ways and the content, control in particular, is not just about political speech it's about all sorts of speech religious, speech and. The like and. The. Study concludes that two thirds of Internet users live. In countries where criticism, of the government or the military is, censored. So. That is in, effect. So. I would say that in this battle for control over. For, openness versus control. In. Authoritarian. States I would say the authoritarian states are winning and I would love to know if any of you disagree with that I. Think. That's conventional wisdom that they're winning. The. EU vision, is much closer to ours but importantly different I don't need to tell people at Google about this they. Have a different conception of the government's relationship to the individual, and. The. Individuals, relationship to data and firms they, have different, conceptions. Of privacy, and they, tend to. Value. Privacy and their conception, of privacy, and consumer protection, over, free speech and free trade as we understand, it they're. Much more inclined to regulate, than we are and, especially. After Snowden never at the European, level which is where the regulation, goes on they have a heightened suspicion, of surveillance so. Again, I don't need to tell you what the consequences of this are because. Google's. Living this now but. Basically. In. This, space when Europe has a more, burdensome. Regime. On. A company like Google doing, business there it's successfully. Able to impose it and we've seen this in all. Of these areas and Google has suffered fines, and penalties and, legal, restrictions, and threats. Of regulation, and all of these measures in all these contexts antitrust, hate, speech privacy. Taxes, a lot. Of these might. Be motivated by protectionist, concerns a lot of them might be motivated, by value differences a lot of it is probably some mixture of the two the. Point is that Europe has a very different, vision of, what. Counts as. What. Counts as proper, communications, within their borders and what counts is what can be done with the data within their borders and the. Key point is just as the authoritarian, states are able to control, in their borders Europe is able to do it at once it's a giant market. To. Which all the major companies want access and, it. Has successfully, so, far imposed. Its different rules different and more burdens and then in the United States, it's. Not just, and. So the point, to here is the. Authoritarian, States are doing what they want within their borders I mean. You say I'm not saying they're always getting exactly what they want there's often an arms race a technological, arms race that again I don't need to tell you about between. Methods of control and circumvention, of control or methods of freedom, but. In general, the trend has been towards, control and towards, States especially states, with decent market power where big firms want to do business they're. Able to impose their vision on those companies and through, other means to ensure, the, types of communication, they want to allow in their countries it's, not perfect, but in, from their perspective, regulation, never is but it's, successful. So. I've talked thus far about nations, being able to control. Content, flows in their borders but. There's also as part of this larger set, of conflicts, going on between nations, for control over their over. Communications, within their borders, there's, also exports. Part. Of the Internet freedom initiative was for the United States to export digital freedom tools and anonymity.

Tools. Censorship. Circumvention tools, and the like US. Companies also export. Technologies. Of control filtering, technologies, of various sorts and the like so we're in the business the. United States are both exporting, tools. Of freedom and tools of control, the. Authoritarian, countries China in particular, has, has a robust, export, business in. Selling. Its what, it's learned over the last 20 years, it's, technologies, of control and it. Has helped Russia it is up Tehran it has helped endless numbers of countries I'm not sure exactly what. The. Technologies, that are being exported, are but there's a lot of consultation, and coordination and, sale of, hardware. And software products. From China to authoritarian, countries that want to replicate its. Means. Of control and. Finally. So that those are real exports, and the, last category these, are sort. Of indirect, exports, and that was talked about this a second ago the right to be forgotten if. This, case in the highest court in Europe succeeds, and, I. Think it's it's I believe. It is Google Spain in Spain that was the. Shock of this order that they were started, about. Giving. Individuals, a right to remove certain data, about. Them from Google searches and. The. Ultimate order I think it was in the highest court in Spain was, that. To. Make this effective, the data had to remove not just from Google, sp or whatever it is but from all of Google's networks in many of its for. Many from. All of its databases you can't get access through it searches to. This, information, anywhere in the world so, the step that happens and to the extent is enforced, and, to the extent Google accepts, it and continues to do business in, Europe as I predict it will and. That means that no I don't know how big an effect this is but if it's a big effect in Europe it's gonna be the same effect in the United States and that information won't be available on Google searches in the United States so, that's a form of export of control same. Thing with privacy the. The data privacy regime. That. Europe Europeans, have which is more restrictive, than in the United States there's the same impact in terms of companies tend to. If. They want to do business in both places and if they want to. Be. Able to mingle their data they tend to bow to the most restrictive, regime and so. In effect European. Privacy rules have an impact both on our privacy, rules, here, which you might think is a good thing you, might not and also has an impact on our surveillance.

Rules Because that's what they're really mangry about what, they're really angry about is data coming from Europe to the United States to US firms in a, way that the United States can govern, can get the information, if the direct orders or through some other means and. So. To the extent that we've been in an, argument, the last three or four years with the Europeans, about whether, we need to tighten up our surveillance practices in. Order to satisfy their privacy rules again. It might or might not be a good thing I want to stay away from that normative question the only point I want to make is that Europe, has a big extraterritorial. Impact. Finally. I'll say that. This. Is a prediction but. The. Europeans, are in general ahead of the United States in. Thinking. About and, beginning, to legislate, ways. To, force companies to give. Them backdoors or some equivalent to, encrypting, communications, and. This. Is a prediction if it starts happening and I don't think it's going to happen here I don't think there's much of a chance of it happening here in the current environment but, the dynamic will change I predict if, European. Countries Australia. And. Even non, Western democracies, and nations. That aren't Western democracies, start, insisting. On this it's. Going to be harder and harder for companies. To resist, these types of initiatives in the United States I predict that's a form of exporting. Digital control indirectly. So. I've been talking, about thus, far about. The. Ways that the Internet freedom initiative, is not working in other countries, again, the initiative, was to bring the American conception everywhere and I've. Been talking about the ways, and that's not working, now. I want to briefly talk. About the ways in which. And. We're just at the beginning of this conversation at the beginning of understanding it, and again you know more about this than I do so I'd love to learn from you but. The ways in which openness, isn't all it's cracked up to be at home and for. Two reasons I'm going to focus on two reasons cyber security and speech, so. Not. All of these are actually assaults, in the new u.s. networks this is just a list of things pulled from the headlines in 2017. That, involves, some kind of cyber attack or data breach or cyber exploitation.

Or, Something like that and the. List goes on and on and the point is simply as. The. The. White House cybersecurity czar. Joyce was talking in Cambridge the other day and he, said that basically we don't that. We've become numb to it it happens everyday we're like the Frog, slowly boiling, in the in the kettle that's getting worse and worse and worse and worse by the day and, we, really don't have a plan to deal as a nation, with, our sovereign, securities. And. So. One of the point I want to make is that, openness. And contributes, to this it contributes to this because and, again you all know more about this than I do closed. Societies, are able to have the, extent they can impose get, rid of anonymity to. The extent they can control, information flows better to the extent that they can eliminate. Encrypted, communications, they're, able to deal with cyber security problems, better than, open societies, something. That's not as easily. Understood, is that our very openness. Makes. It. Harder, for the United States to respond, to. Cyber attacks and I give you three examples of this the. President, Obama here was speaking, at his press conference, at the end of his his, last press conference last year I think it was that one it may have been the one before it was the press conference in which he was talking about the. Russia hack and he was being questioned about why. The United States did not do more and he explained that and, this is a perpetual problem, in our deterrent strategy. Deterrence. Requires. That. To, deter you have to credibly, be able to commit to impose. Pain on the adversary, when the adversary does, something to you that, you don't want to happen to you and the. Problem that the United States finds itself in over and over again this is what clapper is talking about is, that every time the United States thinks about retaliating, this happened with the Iranian. Bank attack in 2012. It. Happened, with that. The Korean attack could happen a, hack, it, happened most notably in the DNC, hack. Mistakes. Has a taters, and the sub situations did nothing why because. When they gamed it out they thought that the retaliation, to our retaliation. Would be worse for us and that. In a so-called. Escalation. We're. Gonna end up being much worse why, because. Our networks are open because, we're more digitally connected, because we're more digitally. Dependent. And we have more to lose from that escalation. So. That's, what Obama, is talking about when he says that we're, more vulnerable partly. Because we have a more open society. There. There other ways in which were more vulnerable I get to that in a second and. It's. Why this is so this is James clapper the Obama's. Director, of the. DNI the Director of National Intelligence. He. Said that we he was explaining that we didn't respond, to the Iranian attacks precisely because we thought the consequences, for our banks would be worse when it went wrong counter, retaliated.

And He. Said earlier and this is I think the conclusion of the u.s. government we simply can't, do deterrence. We. Can't do defense very well as a nation we can't do deterrence very well as a nation which, is why the Frog, is slowly, boiling. This. Is a big topic but, the. Internet has really changed. Speech in this country in. Such a way that. And. I'm, only gonna be able to touch on this briefly but in such a way that. Makes. Openness. And the open networks and that and, in the speech that are that are social, media that, is uncensored, largely makes, possible it. Has a lot of pretty bad effects we, see me I don't have to remind, you about, how. Social. Media and can, be used for disinformation misinformation, and. Propaganda this, was going on in the election it's very clear now we've. Seen troll, armies, that. Because. The internet enables. Groups. Enables. Private individuals, to, both, coordinate, in large groups and attack someone, in. Ways that are very intimidating. And so we see speakers being intimidated, we. See flooding tactics, that distort, or overcome, to favor speech through fake news fake commentators, lots of various sorts of the like we. See the, splintering, of news media such, that everyone has. Not, everyone I don't, but many people have, what. Cass Sunstein calls the daily me we only get the information that confirms your biases, and you don't have. To confront facts that don't confirm your biases, this, is all by way of introducing a topic that I think we're familiar with which is that, there's. A lot of downsides to, openness, to the free speech assumptions, behind the open Internet initiative is where, the old free speech assumptions, where. That. Don't really apply when every speaker has, access, to a platform and can speak and the speakers can. Coordinate. And, send, out successfully. Harmful, information or misinformation in, a, way that drowns out what, some might think is more legitimate speech so. The. The, I think the most ironic thing about. How, the open Internet has, open, the openness agendas been upended is. Clinton. Gave her speech in, 2010. And. It. Was directed overtly at authoritarian, countries, Russia. At the time was complaining, China at the time was complaining, part of their platform and, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Is that. Nation. Should have sovereignty, over their borders and other nations shouldn't, metal and, Clinton, speech was basically, about how we're going to be meddling in authoritarian, networks, to. Help bring openness to those networks and, let. Me say that China. And Russia view. That I'm not defending it I'm explaining it they. View that about the same way that we view their, Russian meddling in our election and it. Frankly it is the same thing except, that there they, are meddling, in a democracy and we're. Meddling, in an authoritarian state. And that might be it is different, normatively, but. From Eric's perspective, it's exactly the same thing and. And, Putin, was sure. And he said so with their protests. After. The 2011. Legislative. Elections in Russia there were protests, he explicitly, blamed, Hillary Clinton for. Basically, organizing. Our, State Department for organizing, and. Basically. Organizing, and coordinating the protests and helping them get started and giving money for them and, frankly. The United States has a history of meddling, in Russian elections President, Clinton's administration. Intervened. With a lot in a lot of ways in the election of Putin excuse me of Boris Yeltsin, in 1995. And his assistant, Vladimir, Putin was watching the, United States has long interfered, in foreign elections, as. Has the Union and Russia, so. Anyway this opened international, edge initiative which was supposed to bring freedom to Russia basically.

Is What happened to us we. Met it we we said we're going to meddle in your networks to bring freedom and they. Meddled in our networks and it turns out that Putin want and it turns out that openness. Is on the defense. When. He basically combined a very simple. Fishing. Operation, with. Pretty, simple, you know in taking advantage of our open media and uncontrolled, media and that's, all it was and it, had devastating. Impact on, who. Knows if it had an impact on the election but certainly in the confidence of our institutions, so. The very tight about the very tactics, but close to the very taxes we said that we were going to use to bring freedom to Russia they basically use to us to. Call. Into question the gentlemen legitimacy. Of our electoral system. Ok, last slide these. Are predictions and. I don't there are very long-term predictions and, I'm just starting to think about these but, I basically. Think that what. The United States is its, approach I'm not talking about companies and pharma the government its. Approach towards these issues is unsustainable. I, imagine. That companies like Google will. Muddle through and accept, the 2.1, billion dollar fine and what I take to be a tweak to their, advertising. And move, on I don't know what the limit is to. Europe and Europe. Is just going after big American IT firms like crazy now I don't. Know what the limit is I think the limiting factor is what the consumers, in Europe whom I think like American, products will put up with but, for now the. European Union sees along. The dimensions I mentioned, C's, US companies is a big giant target and they're going after them I imagine. That the Google's of the world would be able to handle that I don't know where, that will go but I think we'll muddle through on that. And. It. When it comes to the Chinese of the world it's increasingly, it's, been clear for a long time. American. Companies that want to do business in China will have to do business in China and China's terms and the US government is not going to change that and I think American companies they want to do business there they have been complying with China's, increasingly, increasing.

Demands. For access. To proprietary information, for, cooperation, with the government for cooperation, with local, and the like so, well. Muddle that you you the Google's the world will muddle through those with, those foreign, regulations, lose it using the tools they can to. Try to deal with them I think, that the Internet freedom agenda is certainly dead with the Donald Trump administration nobody's. Talking about that no. One seems to care about that but I think the very idea, of the, United States, bringing. Openness, to these, these. Countries is dead, I don't, think it's a viable. Strategy and, I don't think it will ever be achieved maybe. It will be a part of our rhetorical strategy but I don't think it I think it's dead. This, is another big topic but I, really, want to emphasize that what, we see as these terrible, intrusions, into our. Electoral. System and, into, our networks, by the Russians, you know hacking into the DNC. Hacking. Into electoral systems it's. Widely viewed by the rest of the world this is what we do and along. Different dimensions it is what we do where, in other nations networks, in a very aggressive way we. Use military tools aggressively, Stuxnet, is the best example the. Snowden revelations were, a shock to the rest of the world and to people in this country as well and, I. Think that the. United States never has a chance of getting relief, from these type of, very. Aggressive intrusions, by other countries that are going on in many dimensions I didn't talk about them much until, it's willing to put. Something on the table what are you gonna give up and, is the United States willing to. Pledge that it won't meddle in Russian elections the way it was alleged to have done in 2011, and the way it did in 1995. In, exchange, for Russia not doing that for us I'm not even sure that's a possible deal that could be made but is that even some. Of the United States would consider would. We consider pulling, back on the use of some of our offensive, cyber, exploitation. And and, attack. Tools. In exchange. For relief from other countries I predict, that we're going to be have to face that possibility even though no one's talking about it now, and. I think that there's gonna be and, again this is very big picture and I certainly don't know the details but we're gonna have, to rethink. Openness. At home there's, going to be a lot of pressure on the googles of the world and especially. Social, media platforms, to bring, control, over. So-called fake news. That's, a very difficult task and the attempt to do so is going to burden a lot of legitimate speech and I. Think we're only beginning to, get on that path and we haven't figured out what that looks like but. There's going to be a rethinking. Of freedom. Of speech in this country due, to what, the downsides, of, open. Open, speech on these networks is so, those are my predictions and, if you have any questions I would, love to take them so.

You Made a series, of predictions what. Prescriptions, might you make like that's what I think we will, do what do you think we actually should do, that's. Tough I tried, not to say anything in the whole talk about what we should do because it's just very tough I. Think. That something, like each of these three things are going should happen will have to will have to happen and they probably should happen in reaction, and reaction, to the change world but I really don't know we're, going to see. You. Know the I'm so, even, if the Internet freedom agenda doesn't, work does that mean we should stop supporting, dissidents, abroad who are trying to achieve freedom in those countries trying to circumvent control, I don't think that but, if there's a relationship, between our support, for that and this, terrible, predicament with and with our electoral system with other things going on in this country then, I think it does need to be rethought the. Same about very, aggressive use of by. The National Security Agency of its cyber. Tools if there's a relationship between and, I believe there is are very. Aggressive use of those tools abroad, and what's, happening to us at home I think we need to rethink, that if we can tap. That on that and there's, definitely going to be we're in the middle of. Rethinking. About what. Kind of speech we appreciate and how we're gonna regulate it and I know that's going to happen how ii don't know i don't know what that should look like sorry. We. Have a question from Zurich how, do you see the role of multinational. Corporations what. Are the points of collaboration, between governments, and corporations for. Promoting political social. And economic openness. And who, should be taking the lead. That's. A tough question. So. I don't know how this person is communicating I'll try to answer it and then he or she may want to follow up so.

My. View about this is pretty simple each company thinks, decides, for itself what, its values are. Consistent. With what the law of the United States permits, it to do there. Are a lot of companies that are exporting tools, that are facilitating. Oppression abroad that's. Not illegal a lot. Of it is not illegal so. You. Know companies have different values and they have to decide for themselves and, their shareholders what they want to do. Governments. So I'll just, say this I I, think I can answer the question this way governments. Will impose. Orders, on corporate, order on corporations within their borders to the extent, that they want to. The. Only question, is whether the US government, should. Take a, stand about the extent to which US corporations, can, be doing business say in China or Iran or something like that and to. Date we do have laws about that they're called sanctions, laws you can't do business in some nations I ultimately. Think my very simplistic, view is, that, corporations, should be able to do what they want to do consistent, with their values and whatever, they're trying to maximize, consistent. With the law anywhere. In the world and if. The US government, which, is where these corporations are wants to change that then there needs to be a law that's passed, and. That's it and I don't actually. I hesitate, very much to have the US. Government intervene, in places, like China to tell companies what they can and can't do there, for. A whole host of reasons I think that's a bad idea. So. You talked about what you think the United States will do or should, do, but. We at this point like don't seem to have a good idea of what our conception, of like open networks are like there's a going, debate about net neutrality there's, stuff about the NSA yeah is. It possible, for us to do anything I mean I guess doing, something that means that the the Rob Joyce's and Hillary Clinton's the world and Google's all get together and figure things out like is that a possible, way forward, or.

Do, We need an open conversation and if we need an open conversation how, do we do that when in the past that the the way the things have seen have been done with things like you know the NSA essentially, came out of secret. Bush administration, programs the open new net agenda was an Obama administration thing, that, you know they just sort of wanted to do without a whole lot of public. Discussion around it so how do we avoid that the, next time around especially. Given the the state of you, know current US politics okay hold on to my category I don't really understand what the question is sure um so I understand, everything you said but could you, let. Me just say one thing I mean you can tell me what the question so the open Internet initiative I mean, when I started thinking about this it's actually hard to pin down what that means. It. Means a lot of different things and different people and I gave a list that was basically the general list that I was able to discern from, her speech and from other things and it's. Basically free trade in digital goods I mean that's basically what it is both, domestically, and internationally. But. So so with that background what could you just give, me a short version of the questions that didn't really follow which one would answer yeah, so, how. Do we, do. So do we need an open conversation, about. What. The United States should or can do within. The United States do we need to agree about what our conception, of the, US role in the Internet is and to. How. Do we do that given, that in previous, iterations. Of this problem, when. The United States has taken a stance on these, sorts of things whether it's regarding NSA or. Sort. Of open Internet things that. Seemed to have been you. Know small groups of people in. Various policy communities essentially saying you know we're gonna do this and either. Doing it secretly or doing without sort of public mandate the. Obama administration, not you know have, open. In it as a major sort, of plank of their platform right obviously they talked about it you mean Trump Obama. Obama okay, I mean President, Obama when, people say why did you vote for him I'm not sure that open Internet was the first thing on their mind right there's not sort of a public mandate for him to go off and start imposing.

Opening. It on the rest of the world I agree so let me just say a couple things I think this waiver question the first one is. Yes. Unless we, as a country have, a coherent, conception, I. Talked. About the government level I mean firms, have. Different, motives, and it's, hard for the government to coerce them and their business abroad for reasons I just said it doesn't happen that much but. Let's talk about the government the government needs to have a coherent, conception, about what, it's doing and why I don't see actually, that much of a difference across administrations. I mean, the, only thing Hillary Clinton really added in that speech to what Bill Clinton was saying in the 1990s. Was. This idea that we're gonna subsidize, and, pay for, he's not. Mining that not even been new these tools to help people sort of in control abroad and the, NSA stuff yes that started with Bush but it continued, right through Obama and so there's actually there's. Actually continuity. Across the ministrations I don't know about the Trump administration where. I don't think we. Have had the right conversation, I think this answers your question is and, I've talked, a lot of people in the government about this and they just like shrug like what are you talking about we. Haven't had a conversation between the open Internet. Freedom of put, people and the. National security people and those. Are you. Can't be promoting. In my, opinion openness, abroad and, you, can't be promoting, freedom, on the net if you are in effect undermining, those networks and exploiting, them especially. If you're part of the renewing that sort of political, ends in those countries so that is what I see is the fundamental tension within the US government that the US government doesn't see at all because it's just a gigantic thing and they can have these two different agendas and, you. Know the, Snowden revelations caused, that hypocrisy to get noticed, but it didn't cause it to change at all and, that's. Where the conversation needs to be had and that's very hard conversation, to have and I haven't and I've it's. Not it hasn't happened yet that that's that's the point that we need to figure out our priorities I think does that make sense. Given. What you said about the increased domestic surveillance since 9/11, and even. The recent Department. Justice subpoena of Facebook. Activist user, information do. You think we're trending towards, greater authoritarian. Control, on part of the US government I wouldn't. Call it a Thorat arian control because it's all democratically, sanctioned, in some extent and it's you know it's governed by the rule of law we could have a debate about that but I firmly believe it's governed by the rule of law. But. Yes. I mean we have increasing. I, would say national. Security, control, of our networks, since 9/11, through variety of means and. There's. No doubt about that there's. No doubt about that and I don't see that turning back any time and in. Fact here's, another prediction I don't, really want to defend but I'll just make it I think, that the cybersecurity imperative. Is. I'm not saying this is a good idea but I think the cybersecurity imperative, is going to lead the government to be more involved in domestic works so, I think that the. Combination of not the 911 anti-terrorism. Imperative, and the cybersecurity imperative. That those. Do things I wouldn't call it authoritarian, because I think it will happen pursuance, the rule of law but it's definitely not, pro. Civil liberties and I do think that trend will continue and, I don't see it you. Know the 702, is up for reauthorization and. There, might be some, narrowing of it a little bit but fundamentally, I think that program will stay in place and. And. I, really do think that that. The. Cyber security problems are going to require, I don't know how and I don't know when to the government to be much more involved in the networks so, that's not an answer to your question I think it is what, do you mean by European, what do you mean by quote European, governments, have had more success than the US government when it comes to imposing backdoors, to private, companies do, you have examples in mind I do I don't have the legislation before me and I didn't quite say that I said I was careful about what I said I said that they're, further along and accepting. The idea that. We're going to have to have compromises, on encryption, there have been legislation, proposed, in some cases it's been passed I don't have I'm, happy, if the person was to email me to send them the data and eat some papers on it I don't have the details on the tip of my tongue but they're, much further along on that and they're they seem to be more willing to.

Accept. That, especially. For terrors of anti-terrorism, reasons, and the. Prediction, is that if that comes to fruition then. It's going to put pressure on, similar. Measures in the United States. So. I'm I'm British, and I. Agree, with what you're saying about the US has far more rule of law in, the in the way it handles things but, in this space there's some interesting things been going on in the last few decades that, become more and more obvious and. I'm curious what your view is about secret, law things. Like the. Interpretations. Of the law made by certain, say. Department, of Justice internal, lawyers or what goes on in the FISA courts, those, sorts of settings where the, law is made and interpretations. Of the law are being applied but they're not publicly, accessible which. Is unusual for the u.s. yeah I'm curious so, you. Probably don't know this but not only do I have views about it I've done it myself and, I've been a Justice Department official who interpreted, law in secrets and some very highly. Classified contexts. I didn't. Like it then and I don't think it's a great thing I think. For. I've written papers, about this and I'd be happy to send them to you but in general. I think that sometimes. There. Is a need, for secret, legal interpretation, when. Exposing. The legal interpretation, would wouldn't, make it public illegal preparation would reveal programs. Whose. Revelation, would be damaging to those programs and which are important to the national security the United States, so. I think it's an inevitable, practice I think it's over. Broad I think that a lot more legal, interpretation, that takes place in secret can, be disclosed. And. I think it should be disclosed and it has been disclosed one of the many virtues of, the Snowden revelations is. That. The Director, of National Intelligence the, National Security Agency and all the national security. And. The departments. And agencies, have. Been, much more robust not perfectly, I mean, but, much more robust in disclosing, much. More so thousands. And thousands of pages of documents of. FISA. Court decisions, and, legal, interpretations. That. That formerly they never would have disclosed and I think that there's I think. That there should be more of that to the extent possible but, let me say also there. Can also be and this is gonna be maybe seem paradoxical, they can and should be more. Transparency, inside, the government, so. One practice that I found strange. When I was in the government and I've written about since but now the government is. So. There there's actually a separation, of powers that takes place in secret and national security inside, the government there is and it's it's, a. Deformed. Form of the one we usually think of but it's a lot better than nothing and it's a substitute, there's, the executive, branch which interprets. The law and enforces, it a lot. Of the time it is reviewed by the secret, court the FISA Court and that is not a rubber-stamp Court and there. Is reporting, to the congressional, intelligence committees. Who. You. Know abs and flows but they, have much more in. My opinion a more robust growth senator Wyden has been extremely, consequential and. Holding. The executive, branch's feet to the fire and other members of that committee have as well, so. One thing that here's, the thing about secret legal interpretations, as I say I did it myself. When. You're in those, secret rooms making those interpretations. It. Would be it. Would lead to much better and more rigorous and, and, narrower. Legal, interpretations, if all of those interpretations, were. Being shown to other institutions, we. Weren't in the business of showing them generally. To the congressional intelligence committees, I think that should happen it does happen more that, very act of disclosure in secret, to another body really. Has a disciplining, effect on the United States and takes, away the, inevitable. It diminishes, the harm of the inevitable, compromise that I think is necessary for, secret law so. That's. What it's I would say that the problem is is is is a serious one but. It's improved, since and because of the Snowden revelations. One. Of many things that Snowden did I mean. I believe he caused great harm to the national security but he also. Achieved. Many great benefits. What. Is the connection between openness. Divinest, free speech and information. Security you, repeatedly, say that openness, weakened, security, how, will censorship. Of speech on the internet improve, security. I. Didn't. Say that censorship, would. Improve security, and. I'm not sure that follows, so, that. The example, I had in mind is that. The. Kind of information operation. That.

The. Russians did that's. A much more successful operation. In an open society where the press is not controlled, where, people can can, speak, and say what they want and it's easier to so division, in. A world in which the government is not controlling, speech and not controlling the press than, it is and one in which they are that's one example I had in mind, during. The past decades there have been incidents where the authoritarian. Which. There. Have been some cases where the authoritarian. Countries. I, mean, they're, no. Internet. Control message spell, of their, border and affecting, other country, other countries, the other. Countries users. Of. Their, use, of Internet yeah so. My. Question, would be that did, you darling consider of cooperating. With other countries or maybe. Authoritative. Agencies. Of the cyberspace. To, push. Back the to. Push back these kind of controls. Give. Me any give me an example for, example I think it was maybe. Five or six years ago when the Chinese, government, used the Great, Firewall to block the. Block. New York Times and, Wikipedia, I. Think yeah, of course but the one, particular method was to pollute, the DNS, server wifey, yeah, and that, and. There have been incidents where the global, DNS server kappa looted instead. Of in other word is chinese filtering, new york times of wikipedia the chinese border because. The techniques they used cause, those services to be denigrated, outside of china yes, yes this. Happens this is another, example of, exporting. Control I could have I could have added to my list so what is the question what can the United States do about it I mean. The United States consider, like, cooperating, with other countries or like. Authoritative. Agencies. Of the cyberspace, to. Pressure. Train let's. Say Chinese government, to scale. Back. Such. Behaviors. Again I don't know there. Are no authoritative, cybersecurity, agencies, and. That's part that's part of the problem but, I don't know about that particular case what the United States did but let who's it going to cooperate with and what is it going to do what are its options I mean. If the problem, is, bad enough if the extraterritorial, effect of what China is doing at its borders is bad enough then. We have a whole you, know it's just like any other international, dispute we're trying to do something that has an adverse effect in the United States and that we do the same thing there's, a whole range of tools from. Calling. Someone and yelling at them and threatening them to imposing sanctions, to. Retaliating, in cyber or retaliating, outside of cyber there. Are a whole host of tools that we have and we've. Got extraordinary. Cyber weapons, you know that we could use but. The. Question is was that really a big enough deal did. It last long did whether our purpose did it go away and what, it and and it's, the United States really, going to use its tools to. To. Fight. Back against China it's it's a very tricky proposition I imagine. What happened the way usually happens is but. I don't know about this case I mean I heard about better know how it went away is, there were some diplomatic, exchange, in. And, the United States probably made clear that it wasn't pleased with what China was doing I think it doesn't happen anymore. But. There but here's the the real truth is there's there's, not much we can do and, what can the United States do, if it tells Google, to. Take down. Data. From it searches, globally, to. Protect Europeans privacy and that means that you can't find some information that you might want to get what.

Can The United States do I mean. It's really googles decision, and Google, wants to keep doing business as. We've seen it with its compliance with the right to be forgotten once keep doing business in Europe because it makes a lot of money there, and, so. There's not a lot the United States can do I mean if the problem rose to a level where, they. Were taking, down sites for a long period of time in the United States you would elevate. But. It would probably dassault resolve diplomatically. Thank. You actually. One more question, okay so, again. The example will be China but the, the. Chinese government use the security laws. To. You, I mean use use. Oh I, wouldn't call it an excuse. But like they they, use security, laws to to, impose their control, over the Internet. So. Correct. Yeah so so. And. You. Mentioned not be a US. Government it needs to improve the auto Mystic internet, security, as well right so, do, you predict, that, this. Method. Will take a solitary. Interest. Which. Method, like. Use the used. Use. Law to, promote. Security, internet. Security in the United States yes, yes I mean this is what I predicted, 15. Minutes ago maybe I wasn't clear I do, think, I don't know how long what dimension, and I don't know how it will happen, but. I do think, that the imperative. You're talking about. Anti-terrorism. That, China uses, as an excuse, to. Surveil. And control the network more aggressively, yes you know the United States we did that too after 9/11, the reaction to 9/11 was to do more domestic, collection and so. That's what states do when, they face a threat that they don't understand, they can't control and they're trying to understand, they want to get more information, but. So that so I I think that that does happen to some degree here not nearly to the degrees in China obviously and I, also think that as, I said that, the imperative, to do something, to, make our networks more secure will in some way lead the government to be more involved in those networks. That's. A pretty vague prediction. And I'm confident, that level of abstraction. But. Not any more concretely than that thank, you very much thank you very much appreciate it thanks. For your good question thank. You. You.

2017-11-25 12:00

Show Video


Google is basically the digital stasi..... You motherfuckers must be on another planet...

Good talk. Really interesting.

These giant jewish monopolies cannot censor if they are monopolies.  Break them up Trump!

You censor me for no reason at all google.  You are in league with the ADL and SPLC to destroy business for anyone that speaks out against global world jewish domination.  You are a jewish monopoly and deserve death.

I officially hate YouTube/Google/Alphabet

Does China have more control over there people? If so..probably is that good or bad.. And what aren't we doing.. What are we not willing to do to wake people up?

Bruh...what data are you talking about? Be specific man. Thank you..

You know what's so insane about all this fake news shit? Nobody even bothers to consider "maybe we need to teach people to think critically and form opinions based on facts instead of memes". How much more resources are we going to waste stifling human rights when it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion if we simply stop accepting that people are dumb? People aren't dumb, they're misinformed and ill taught. Really cheap and easy fix for all of this crap, just take out ads that say "hey, don't forget to cross reference before you share". Done. Wtf is so complicated about this we need to violate our charter of Rights to protect us stupid people?

If us people are too stupid to govern ourselves, then surely the people in charge are too stupid to govern us as well.

How many people in the room have 100,000 followers on instagram, facebook, twitter, snapchat, or youtube? invite more attention gatherers to your meetings.. Who's in the audience? Can you start asking the people asking the questions to give a brief bio of who they are or what they value?

I haven't read the rule of law..

target entrepreneur influencers. They are gaining the most attention

Your message needs to be heard from powerful social media users.. Million+ followers Tai Lopez,Grant Cardone, Gary V...Kim Kardashian... Popular icons People with a large following A much louder..stronger voice

If you think it might happen..it'll probably happen. What you think..manifests. "No?" watch

People are interesting..I predict people will start to disappear

everyone has a vision... Vision can be blurred

This is exciting....

Hillary and cyber security used in the same sentence, stopped watching

2:00 "open" really means "your activities are open to us". What kind of "freedom" can we have without privacy?

A russian diplomat once said to Pakistan officials; we support our allies even when we know that they are wrong. But in your case America leaves you alone even when they know you are right.

Is it? Seems you run the internet. Google is the biggest spy operation in human history and lacks any conscience about the fact.

Other news