The size and scope of the data sets and how theyre being used is something this administration has taken very seriously. Most recently john podesta, the counselor to the president , its about as high as you can go to ask the question, produce the big data report, and it presented a very balanced view of, well, look, there are serious benefits that are derived from encrypting things. So, for example, whether its the internet of things and Rising Energy efficiency, how the grid is allocating energy across sectors, incredibly important. Forits health data. Youre able to detect and respond to an epidemic more quickly than you would otherwise or for law enforcement, mechanisms by which you can use data in order to produce something that produces a public good and makes us all better and happier. You have to balance that with the fact that data can be used for good things and bad things. What are those bad things and what can we do about the use of that bad thing . The fact that someone doesnt care the information is districted about their toaster but they care about their email or finances is directly related to harm. Distribution of information act how i toast bread leads to very little harm over any extended period of time. Distribution of information on how i use my finances, the degree to which i make financial or family or health decisions, those are very serious, very private, very sensitive aspects of information. That can be used to harm you. I would commend the big data report, not just the big data report but the fact that this administration, the department of commerce and the green paper, the ftc and the white paper did this. When this administration came back into office after many years of not having produced documents like this, not calling for reengage that conversation. So, again, at the end of the day, these are issues were aware of as an administration. Were taking them extremely seriously and at the highest levels working towards asking the right questions and ensuring we dont inject unnecessary friction or do harm to what are very serious potential benefits while at the same time balancing mittsy has a question in the front row. Any of you see the nova show last night . It was on data encryption and whatever. It was pretty amazing. I wasnt sure i wanted to go through it. But i, too, am anxious about giving my credit card i mean, and i dont have a lot of money, but i just theed idea that this can make us so uneasy. They can stop the electric system going. We all have an enormous challenge. So its actually quite depressing to me to travel to other countries that were later modernizers thisin these areas because theyve been able to leapfrog stages of development. So, for instance, the fact i have credit cards in my wallet now that are not chip and pinned is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. Given the amount of losses that the Credit Card Companies have to write off every year, it would be worth it for them to update the infrastructure so that we didnt have to, you know, have magnetic strip credit cards. But its a legacy infrastructure. During the sixyear sentence i did in los angeles, i remember pac bell coming out at one point and saying were going rip all the copper out of the walls and go to fiber. Some actuary down in b5 ran the numbers and you never heard about it again because we had to replace so much legacy infrastructure. When ive traveled to countries that have had the fortunate advantage of basically going from dirt to wireless, you know, it really highlights a lot of the issues we have in terms of structural investments, spending stimulus money on bridges but should have been spent on ipp6 and things along these lines spop were literally playing catchup in many ways to some of the trends that we see in places where they didnt have those legacy problems. In the very back in the corner the gentleman with the question. Im jim marks with politico. Mr. Mull vain, i hope you can expand on something you said earlier about the concerns about National Encryption and chinese encryption standards being put into technology thats produced in china from other companies. Whats wrong with that if the encryption itself is good . You can address that. Sure. Thats the issue. A good example lets go back just briefly over the history of latvia, the chinese counterpart to the Wireless Security standard. When it was proposed by the industrials in beijing, they said if you want to produce equipment and have a single Global Production chain, you dont want to bill a china iphone tan rest of the world iphone and the rest of the world couldnt be built in china unless certified by the resident authority, you need to make your product compatible with this Information Technology standard in addition to wifi, okay, and here are the list of 30 companies we want you to partner with and in order to have that partnership you have to turn over your crypto source code so they can build the apis into the product. Well, turning over your crypto source code to companies associated with an authoritarian government is not a global model that i advocate. When i talked about encryption, i talked about the transparency of it. Well, you know, theres a great, you know, encryption philosophy that says, you know, the algorithm shouldnt be secret. Thats why i love photography. When the algorithm is secret its insecure so, all you have to do is figure out the algorithm. If were going to have a robust encryption system, it cant be when i call somebody and i say whats the wacky algorithm and im told by the state encryption manager commissioner in beijing that algorithms in that sequence can state secrets and cannot be disclosed, i dont regard that as any of the part of product i want in my belongings. Do you want to jump in . Im not hes looking to defend beijing. Im not the expert on encryption or the legal, but from what i understand about the conversation, actually, i believe this particular case for iphone is not really because iphone is manufactured in china but actually iphone want get into china because, you know, if you sell that phone in china you need comply with the local laws and regulations. The Chinese Government require that you have to support such kind of encryption or wifi standard. I think thats the key. As were speaking, i have 56 divided groups in the United States. So what we need to do, we need to make sure every single phone we sell into the United States comply with the laws of the u. S. Governme government, carrier partners and make sure you know that the privacy of the customers and from the carrier partners is implemented. So, for example, most i think all wifi chips particularly for the United States, we always have, you know, either broadcom or qualcomm and any other u. S. Companies. Soy think thats where its clear. So because, again, back to the original question about the challenges we are facing i think those are challenges were facing as Global Technology companies, is no matter u. S. Company or Chinese Company were all facing the same challenges. Thats why, you know, all the government need to come toget r together. I think the key things for us short term for us is we lose the economy of scale so we have to have different products for china or for u. S. We have to separate it. But ideal world we should have one size fits all but unfortunately we cannot do that today. I just want to address the general concept there, which is not specific to that particular chip and having two chips doing the same thing in a given product. Its the idea that its the Chinese Government making this determination and mandating the specific purchase from specific providers is a problem. Because you cant have every market in the world e imposing that kind of nonvoluntary purchasing and production standard. It ruins opportunities for innovation and it doesnt comply with the idea that voluntary standards should be exposed to the market and the market actors should adopt them. No one forces you to buy anything from qualcomm or broadcom. That kind of forced purchasing is a problem and its not fair. And you shouldnt have to include chips with standards that have already been rejected by the International Standards organization, by ieee, by itf and are nonetheless forced upon you because of Market Access requirements and the way that this certification process takes place in the country in terms of getting your products certified for the domestic market. Even though the standard itself has been rejected as technically inferior and we see this across dozens of different i. T. Standards in this particular case. The only reason china can do this is because of the size of the market. Right. Bahama couldnt. But it has other charms. This gentleman here has a question. Im a fellow at the german marshall fund. I want to touch on something i think richard said about artificial rules about the infrastructure. I think thats part of the disconnect. A lot of these arent artificial. These are the social norms, the social contract broken into all these different pieces. So the internet is designed at odds with the way Human Society is design. Thats why youre seeing it fracturing into pieces. I wonder until you have a Global Social contract i dont see how youre going to fix these issues are going to keep coming up. Differing norms on the freedom of speech and just the way you do things, the way you enforce law, all these things. This is what the internet is confronting. Its much bigger than just these little pieces. What are Tech Companies do this to figure this out, understand it, and to engage and encourage these global debates so people do talk about how to converge norms, how to converge ways of doing things so we can all basically get along . Ill go against my irish heritage. The good news is these technologies are changing social norms. Theyve changed the way i interact with my children, my wife, with my friends, with my coworkers, literally changing the way our entire society is working with one another. The bad news is a lot of the prophesy hopes at the beginning that barlow, declaration of independence in cyberspace idealism has foundered on the fact that, in fact, these technologies provide just as much interesting power to people seeking to control as they do to people seeking to liberate them. I remember 15 years ago people talking act how the internet or cyberspace was just going to wash over all these authoritarian regimes, that they were going they were so atavistic, so backward looking, they would never be able to deal with it, and yet weve been amazed as theyve responded nimbly to wave after wave after wave of disruptive technologies, some with more success than others. You can compare arab spring to china or russia, but, you know, at the end of the day there is more of a push slr pu pull, and and, you know, whats also embedded in your comment, though, is the unintended consequences. I mean, were not on some linear trajectory towards absolutely good and peace and happiness. And so embedded within some of these technologies are unexpected things, again, as the father of teenage daughters i discover this every day when i go through all the logs of all of their computer use and social media use and spend probably an hour of my day doing that now. And, you know, so you realize that these liberating technologies also have these sort of pernicious and unintended consequences. I want to address the basic underlying question, the internet is not breaking. At the end of the day, there is literally not a country that has chosen not to connect to the global internet. There is discussion by some politicians and some countries about constructing internet within their country and disassociating themselves from the global internet. But that is actually not happening. I think iran had taken some steps at creating an iran ran internet that their people would be able to use only in iran and would not be connected to the global internet. I dont think that actually ever took off. There was some discussion about it in russia but that, again, didnt take off. What i think were talking about here really is the worldwide web, which is an application that rides over the internet and then services delivered over the worldwide web that at times allow people to engage in behavior as human beings that is offensive to people in other jurisdictions. So take, for example i mean the most recent case was turkey, right, during the last election. There was a twitter situation in which people were tweeting out things about a candidate running for office and turkey shut down the entire service of twitter. Now, that has since been worked out. Twit strbak up and running in turkey. I think youtube and facebook and others have faced similar situations in different markets. So, for example, there are parts of the world where its against the law to Say Something bad about the prophet muhammad. And people do it on facebook or twitter or whatever all the time. Its up to those Service Providers that are, again, simply a service on the larger internet, to work with those governments and where they can, if within the concerts of their ethics and terms of service, work something out to ensure that theres a Mutual Respect of service delivery. But, again, i dont want to conflate that with the idea that there are islands of nonconnectedness in the world. Technologically thats simply not happening. There is no armageddon in that sense. But that underlying question of how do you ensure that Human Behavior in your country, that you think is outside the scope of your particular laws and jurisdictions is addressed, that is one of the most challenging questions that we have. But those are questions that Service Providers work out with those specific countries. So, for example, like pandora is not accessible or netflix in parts of the world, soy think these are things that are being worked out in a wide variety of areas. But our goal and our underlying work is to retain the single Global Network which each individual device can connect to any other individual device anywhere in the world. Now, what people do with that connectivity is a separate ke of law and behavior. And were working out how to manage that. I mean, at the end of the day, theres been a lot of talk about the conflicts and the degree to which some countries trust the International Telecommunications union, which is a Specialized Agency of the united nations, versus how much they trust i cam, which is a Nonprofit Corporation incorporated in los angeles. Icam is 15 years old. Icu is 150 years old. So to some degree its an evolution and a back and forth about whats necessary to make sure that you keep the underlying things that work extremely well about the internet and provide extreme public benefits, such as innovation and jobs and freedom of expression and freedom of access to information, while at the same time ensuring that youre respecting everyone and their governments who are involved in this connectivity of global communication. Not just a Technology Problem anymore pap lot bigger. There is an interesting countvailing problem that came up recently which is when you have a company that provides a social Media Service that has become a virtual monopoly in many markets like twitter who then unilaterally decides to shield its users from discussing videos of isis savages beheading people, which i didnt want to see and i didnt want my children to see either, but it is an interesting thing whether there is a role for government in the sense that yo whos to say that twitter got to decide that they were going to run software to go out and find those pictures and make sure the users couldnt get them . You can say the market will decide. Switch to a different outlet. Twitter has a monopoly on economies of scale. Do i want them deciding the social norm or standard in other areas. Are they going to block the jlaw pictures . What other things will they do not for legal or copyright reasons but because of the sense of what think think the social standard should be . I would disagree that twitter has a virtual economic monopoly. It simply does not. The barriers to entry into this particular market are nothing reflective of a monopoly situation and the fact you can access anything twitter puts on on facebook or any number of father not social media sites, coincidental information on the internet. Theres ban lot of talk in europe and other places of the idea that google and facebook and other companies constitute virtual monopoly, its just not accurate. In the same way you could say my space for a time had that monopoly. Clearly, i wont use the word monopoly it had a preponderance in the market that went away very quickly. Twitter tomorrow could vanish off the face of the earth as have many ter social Media Services because they became passe. My children will never put a facebook account up because theyre like me. They have no interest in it whatsoever. Facebook will recede into history. But the community thats been created on twitter has, you know, a quantity and quality all its own. So to defect from twitter and say because i disagree with their enforcement of a particular social standard means im not going to use twitter means ive now voluntarily cut myself off from an economy of scale that actually was beneficial to me. Because i could use the crowd source and everything else. Yes, i have the market option of not using twitter. But there are costs to not doing that, because i disagree, and there were not alternatives of a similar social scale. So, yes, the illegal term monopoly may not be correct, but in terms of the actual performance and use of that service i think that the same idea is still in effect. Its debatable concept. Okay. I think we have time for one more question. Gentleman with his hand up. Thank you to all the im anthony and im with a Cyber Security firm. I have a question mainly particularly for the ambassador and christine bliss. You had mentioned sort of that everyone, all these that everyone is an equal participant in the web, in the internet