 Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening to you all. My name is Ali Velsche. I am a host with MSNBC here in the United States. And it is my absolute pleasure to be moderating the session largely by accident. I'm a substitute in. But this was Providence because this is a topic I enjoy so much. And I have with us for the next little while three people who are very, very well positioned to have this remarkable conversation about data with me on the screen. You can see Richard Edelman. He is the boss over at Edelman, which is one of the world's finest and most established communications, corporate communications, public relations firm. He knows everything there is to know really about global business. And his organization has just released the trust barometer for 2021, which fits into our conversation about data very closely. Also with me, his Excellency Omar bin Sultan, he is a minister of the state for artificial intelligence amongst other things in the United Arab Emirates. And he can tell us a lot about how government is contending with these issues around data, data security, efficiency, gathering. And I think most importantly regulation, which takes me to to Niggat Dodd, who is with the Digital Rights Foundation, where they are very, very concerned about both regulation and safety and how people benefit from this, what is probably the most important commodity we have in the in the 21st century. And that is our own information. So welcome to all of you. I just want to give a quick outline of what this session is. My version of it. Let me tell you what the, you know, the probably a semi official version of this is that we have to reorient data conversations around the world because they have to be designed in the interest of people and societies, not necessarily around the organizations or governments that capture that information. If we can empower people to enable their data flows and get some benefits from it, including personal services, help them make better informed decisions and have more meaningful interactions with each other and with government, that would be a remarkable success. But if I were to give you my short version of what this panel is, it is that data is great and data is terrible. It is the thing that is going to keep us healthy and keep us safe and cure all of our illnesses because we can tell what they are. It is also something that can be very threatening to us that can be used against us and that we need to understand how much of it we own, how much of it we control and what is fair to share with other people. So that is the context in which I want to begin this conversation. And Richard, you do this trust barometer every year, which is such a remarkable document. And it sort of gives you a sense of trust, which is the basis for democratic societies. It is the basis for people's interaction with each other, their interaction with the law and their interaction with their governments and their interaction with businesses. And as it relates to this question of data, your barometer indicates that trust as it relates to governments is declining or did decline in 2020. So we're moving into this world where my government is or businesses around me are calling for more data, more of my information. There's no transaction I can undertake that does not involve me giving more data over. How does that square with the idea that we trust government less and maybe by extension we trust corporations less too. So, Ally, what happened last year is that trust in government spiked up substantially in the sort of May period, because it was like World War Two, you know, it was the big hammer and it could actually save people and trust in government has ebbed profoundly in the subsequent six months. And business is pretty flatlined through this period and business therefore has become the most trusted institution 10 points ahead of government. And so what we see though, two other data points. There's a decreasing willingness of people to share their data such that government can track them in order to calm down the COVID crisis. So it started again very high in sort of March, April, and now in 20 out of 28 countries, it's below the trust level. It's below 60%. And that's that's really important sort of decline in belief and trade off. Also, we find that only four in 10 are prepared to share their data with brands, because they feel somehow that they're not getting a sort of equal exchange of value. And so, and lastly, Ally, it's important to note that trust in tech has declined substantially such that it's just over pharmaceuticals now just over food products. So it used to be by far ahead of all the other sectors. And a lot of this has to do with suspicion, not just about size, but also about data and privacy. And we're going to come back to this. Thank you. Minister, you know, trust in government is different in different places. As you know, we've just had an experience in the United States where there are a whole lot of people who don't even trust that the election was fair. And trust in government, as Richard has said, has been ebbing in the United States for some time. But we are going to rely upon governments to regulate privacy and data and keep us safe. That's a very tough issue when they don't entirely trust governments. What's your position as a gatherer of data, as a minister who deals with technology and data and artificial intelligence, and as a regulator of data on how to address this issue? How do we deal with data when people don't trust that you're supposed to have it? Thank you, Ali. I think, first, let's try to dissect the issue by understanding what do people care about. Depending on the environment that you are in, the maturity of people and their understanding of data differs. So if you're in a society like the U.S., for example, where people are used to using something like Facebook or Google or all these platforms and understand the trade-off of the data that's being given out and the return that they're getting. So, for example, Google Maps is a great example, which you give your location data, the pinpoint exactly where you are, but you get the most efficient way to get from point A to point B. That really gives you an understanding for how willing people will be to give you data. If the environment itself isn't as mature, there's always this disconnect because people feel like they don't know what they're getting out of it. And the customer tends to ask four questions if we simplify the questions that are being asked. The first question is what data is being collected? Some data we don't mind giving to government and the private sector as well. The government knows our names, it knows our age groups because of the passports that we hold and because of the IDs that we have, so on and so forth. What is it being used for? The second question they asked, based on that, they either tend to be positive or negative, depending on how governments use the data. The third question, which is where I think the private sector needs to do more, is how it's being protected. We see that a lot of data is being mined and collected, but not enough is being invested to protect that data. And that's why we're seeing leaks that are allowing people to understand your sensitive data, online people to expose it and find issues that are dividing society. And then finally, what's in it for me? If I give you the data, if we do all this, what's in it for me? With the private sector, what happens is for Google, the service you're getting is so good for Facebook and all these platforms that people believe that the trade-off is worth it, but they are concerned on specific issues that people are getting through Facebook and on some other means. The issue with government is if you're not providing any value, if you're just selecting the data and not doing anything with it or not giving them enough value, people are going to have the issues with that. And overregulating as well is going to hinder the quality of life benefits that you get from deploying these private sector platforms. So it's a balance. It's also, it requires a lot of engaging to the public, understanding where they're comfortable, where they are comfortable, understanding what their expectations are from the use of data. And then based on that, building the regulations, building the systems like collecting the data, the company, but protecting the data is, I think, paramount when it comes to what governments do, does with the data. Minister, thank you very much for that. Nigat, let me ask you about this because right from the Digital Rights Foundation website, it says that you are aiming to protect, support human rights, democratic processes, and digital governance, which is fantastic. Because of the very things that we're talking about right now in the United States, I wouldn't, I would, I'm surprised that we're talking about democratic processes, but we actually are. So given what Richard has said about trust in governments, given what the minister has said about, you know, articulating the four questions, what, where are we on a yardstick of how we are developing data collection, data protection, and data regulation right now. And as we are growing exponentially on these fronts, what is it you want everybody to be thinking about, including people like Richard who represent business and people like the minister who represent government. So Ali, I believe that when it comes to government and when it comes to big tech and tech giants who are collecting and processing data of citizens, there is a lack of transparency on both sides. And I think the relationship between the citizens and the tech giants and the government, it's a very unequal relationship, the power dynamics are very unequal. And then the divide becomes more wider when you talk about global north and global south. So for instance, we are talking about data protection or right to privacy in global south of developing countries where citizens are not even aware that right to privacy or data protection is the fundamental right enshrined in the constitution. So there is a lack of awareness within the masses. But at the same time when you look at the governments, they are trying to regulate internet but at the same time collecting more data without any transparency and accountability. But at the same time when you look at EU or you look at UK or US, at least you know people are aware as Richard mentioned, you know the trust deficiency with the government with the tech giants and people are more careful about their data. That is not the case with the developing countries. So I feel while the conversation now and you know it's around democratic processes is happening all over the world, especially after US incident. I think we really need to take everyone with us, you know in these conversations because tech giants when they are operating, they are operating all over the world right. And they are collecting processing and God knows what they are doing with our data right. They are still accountable and answerable to the people and to the governments in the western world and the developed they go to the Congress and respond to the senators there right. How we are going to hold them accountable when it comes to our governments. And I think we are very, very far behind in the debate around data protection for instance, we are still lucky in Pakistan that we have a data protection bill that is under consideration with the government. But when this bill is going to be passed the conversation with the masses is still something that we feel that there is a gap. The conversations are happening but more on the government side, more on the tech giant sign, but end users are not part of those conversations and I think that's where we really need to work. That's a great point Richard I want to come back to that. There are so many different aspects of this regulating users of information, monetizing it for consumers. Is there value to my data or is it only value when aggregated in the United States. The attention as they got says has been on tech giants. But you and I have both watched those hearings that they have at Congress and it does not fill me with warmth and confidence to see the fact that you know you've got a bunch of relatively old legislators staring at their phones not understanding how social media works. This is a much more sophisticated conversation and if we get it wrong right now governments will get regulation wrong companies will get this wrong. What in your opinion because you speak to both business leaders and government is the right way to approach governance of data in a way that builds confidence because really if we get this wrong I don't even know what the what the landscape looks like. So Ali you and I've been around and long enough to understand that if you wait then government overreacts that there's a huge problem and then there's a popular outcry and then of course the legislators have to attack the smart move by business right now. Since the number one trust building actual thing to do is protect information quality that we should propose a scheme that works in a way that is self regulating but also has government established the playing field that in other words within the field you can play the game. But you know minister you should you know pine on this but the parameters of the field more or less the players need to see. And then I think like the clinical trial data that pharmaceutical companies have to present when they do new drugs. You got totally right. We have to explain how we're doing what we're doing that this is not some mysterious black box which is totally controlled by tech giants. You know the degree to which the people understand and appreciate the means of self regulation is the urgent cry of the populace. Minister let's let's touch on that for a moment. Let's talk about what that field of play looks like because we've got competing interests here when it comes to information. Richard makes the point quality of information is useful right. It's only useful if both companies and individuals and government can use that information for the betterment of society. And they got these talking about people's rights here in America. There is a conversation about freedom freedom of speech on the Internet. And as Richard just mentioned someone needs to regulate something. There's a fear by tech companies and freedom of speech advocates that if you give it to government they will put a lid on it. And there's a fear by governments of other things. So tell me in your opinion what that framework looks like and how how you propose constructing it and executing it. Absolutely. And I like to actually combine both points raised by the guy and by Richard. The first is that the huge responsibility because countries are not the same. You have those who are exporters of these platforms and you have those who are just users. So a country like Pakistan, the UAE, we use platforms that are created elsewhere and ensuring inclusivity of both cultural aspects, ensuring that there are rights that everyone has whether they are in the US or whether they are in the UAE or other places. It's extremely important especially since today we don't have an alternative. What made the Internet great was that the Internet is open and it is accessible for all. What is going to make it a hindrance is if slowly it gets regulated in one country that affects how users in another country are able to access specific data or able to use certain platforms that I think are going to be issues that we're going to see in the future. The second is the parameters need to actually include a conversation that includes the public sector and the private sector and civil society as well. Why that is important is because governments tend to over-regulate because some bureaucrats think that our job is to regulate and that is it. But over-regulating would improve or sometimes also decrease quality of life because people require these platforms to live. If we regulated the Internet a lot, we're going to have issues with regards to how people in different places that have less access to information are able to access information or access these platforms. One of the things that needs to happen is there needs to be a global conversation of what is the right thing to do for everyone, not just for us in the US or for us in the UAE. And how can we ensure that these parameters are parameters that include everyone's point of view. And at least the baseline, we need to start with a very broad skeleton and then slowly add need to it. We don't need to create the whole thing from day one. And there isn't enough time to do that unfortunately. What COVID has proved is we are a globalized world in the digital sphere. These borders don't even exist. So anything that happens in the US affects me in the UAE. Anything that happens in the UAE affects people in Pakistan. So we need to ensure that this Internet is the space for globalization. It is the space that represents everyone. And that everyone's right to be able to access it, use it, and use it in a way that does not make them feel threatened. I don't need to operate in a way that makes me feel like I'm not American, if I don't represent American values or culture, that I will be targeted in the UAE. It shouldn't be this way. Thank you for that. Negaat, the term rights has come up in every conversation here and it happens to be in the name of your organization. When it comes to data rights, digital rights, whose rights need to be protected and how do you manage between the rights of companies that say they need to be protected, the rights of individuals in civil society that need to be protected, and particularly because I got a question on this in the chat, the rights of people who you mentioned who don't maybe even realize that they have rights on this front. So I guess Ali, I have already mentioned that there is unequal dissemination of power between companies, government and the people. And even when we talk about people that are marginalized communities in our countries, that don't even know that there's something called digital rights. So I definitely feel that communities really need to work together, but at the same time I think governments and tech companies, they need to be transparent when they speak to each other. So what we see in our countries that tech giants speak to the government and we absolutely have no idea what are the conversations that are taking happening behind the closed doors. So I think there are two responsibilities that I see when it comes to government. One is that when you are talking to companies, you need to be transparent and tech giants also need to be transparent open because they are answerable to the end users, the ones who use their platforms. Let me just interrupt you there because as the minister said, that's generally true except there's a whole bunch of people younger than me generally speaking who don't know what that deal is, right? I came from a pre-digital world so I understood that going into Google Maps is a great trade-off because I never have to look at maps and things like that. Do the young native generation, the digitally native generation understand that anybody is answerable to them or do they just enjoy a free internet? So I think most of the people, especially in our countries, they think that this internet having access to internet is a luxury, right? So it's like they feel that being on Facebook or Twitter or like all these platforms, that's kind of, you know, they don't think that that's their right, they think it's a luxury. And to be very honest, there is a huge digital divide, you know, and that emerged a lot when the COVID happened and the lockdowns happened in Pakistan. So for instance, even in our country, there are many people in the urban areas have access to the internet and somehow know what their digital rights are. But people sitting in Balochistan or sitting in Khyber Pakhtun for even young people who had to go back to their towns, they couldn't do online learnings or participate in their online education. So, you know, we saw that massive digital divide that emerged during COVID. So I would say that people under even young people understand that digital rights is actually their right, which is enshrined in the Constitution. And that applies not just the fundamental rights that are mentioned in the Constitution are not just for offline spaces, that are also for online spaces. And I think for that communities, organizations really need to work together and government has a huge role to talk about those rights because and judiciary, for instance, you know, interpreting these rights in a way that people should know that our rights apply in the online spaces as well when they are using internet. So minister, let me ask you about that because in the United States, as you know, we've had a conversation in the last several months about freedom of speech. So it's a different different issue than data privacy. And people being able to say things and disseminate them at the speed at which the internet and social media can do so may have had a detrimental effect on democracy. And I cannot believe I'm saying this because I am such a major defender of the freedom of speech and it's so integral in the United States. But actually it has it has made some contribution to to an attack on democracy and what Richard talks about a further destruction in the level of confidence in government. I think you see things a little bit differently in the UAE than than we do in the United States. Tell me about what role you have as a regulator in terms of political speech and how you think about that. So it's not just political speech, I think freedom of speech is necessary, but it's freedom of speech that does not affect other people's liberty. And this is exactly what was seen in the US, right? If my freedom of speech causes people to harm society as a whole or brings harm to a specific individual, either through terrorist acts as well. So if, for example, I go and preach terrorist jargons that make people want to attack Ali in the UAE, that is unacceptable. So you have the freedom of speech until the line is drawn where it actually affects a person that might actually affect his livelihood or effectively negatively. It's very important as well for us to keep as a government pushing towards tolerance. What happens in the US is unfortunately some individuals are intolerant towards the broader society of a specific group of people. The government's role is to ensure that everyone has rights, everyone feels safe within that country. They don't feel marginalized or targeted by specific individuals, and they're not using these platforms to pinpoint specific actions. I'll give you a very, very concrete example. If we think about the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and the use of Facebook to push hate speech that led to the genocide of the Rohingyas. That is a human rights issue, and that is an issue that we need to address as a global community. Yes, whoever posted the content might be seen as a person who has freedom of speech, but once it reaches a point where people are going for genocide or they become refugees and push out of their homes, someone has put his foot down, and that's where the government really needs to intervene. It's a balance, and as I said, we need to engage with people to ensure that this balance is always correct. Why the US system works very beautifully is because there is this triangle of power. You have the political branch, you have civil society, and you also have a private sector who has a voice and is able to represent this point of view. We have not done this before, and we're already late. We're already 20 years late. The internet is being streamed. Platforms were created since the early 2000s and are being used. So every day we spend not doing something about this is a day that is not just lost, but the day that will cause issues like this to come up in the near future. Richard, I always enjoy listening to people from the other parts of the world talk with reverence about this great system we've got in the United States that balances these different parts of power and includes civil society and government and corporations. Because right now, Richard, you and I sitting here in the United States, it can feel very, very broken. With respect to this particular issue that Negat is talking about and that the minister is talking about, what are the next steps that we should take? It does appear that the world looks to America to take leadership in these things, and they're looking at America right now saying, you all haven't figured this out very well. So whether it's internet safety and freedom of speech, data gathering, monetization of data, where does the leadership come from right now? Because I'm not sure most Americans would say, and perhaps most people in the world would say, I'm waiting for Congress to sort this out. Well, I think it's a moment where business actually has to lead, Ali, because it's the most trusted institution. There has to be a scheme put forward that ensures the quality of information. Let's start there. We have an infodemic. We have a serious problem where two thirds of people say our leaders are liars. It has to do with hydroxychloroquine and remdesivir and all these other things. And you don't have to wear a mask or you do. I mean, it's just too many changes in rapid period of time and not substantiated and made up for political purposes. And unfortunately, the media has played into this because it's now into thought bubbles. The left, the right, I only listened to that, which I agree with. Only 18 percent of Trump supporters actually trust the media at all. And so they get their information direct from real Donald Trump or other. And so we have to get the media to play a bigger role here, Ali. I think that we have to get away from opinion towards fact. You've done this for your whole career to be sure that we have both sides represented on a broadcast, not just one. And it can't be ideological. The media scene is biased. It's taken itself out of the game. The media is a very fundamental part of us recovering belief in society. Now, as for business, we have to have a very clear discussion with people about here's what we're taking from you. Here's what we're giving to you. I think Google has done a particularly good job of this when they have data about incidents of COVID or whatever. They're sharing it with public authorities. They're being, you know, they have their own sites saying, you know, here's where it's spreading. And that's the kind of tradeoff they got that I would say is the proper I take data in. I give it back and I'm doing it with government. What's your biggest concern when it comes to data privacy data handling and data regulation? What's the thing if someone said to you, you got to get whatever you want, but you get one thing? What would it be? So I feel that accountability and transparency on both hands at the government and the tech giant side. But at the same time, we really need to have good data protection laws in our countries following the GDPR model, for instance. But that can't happen overnight. What we do in our countries is like reactionary legislations that we, you know, try when we when we are trying to regulate content or trying to regulate other issues related to internet. And I think the GDPR was enacted after years of, you know, conversations and first there was data protection law and then we had GDPR. And I think we need to really follow that model, the conversations, the consultations, the multi stakeholder model is very important that need to take place in our countries. But at the same time, Ali, I would like to take this opportunity and say that there is an incredible opportunity now for everyone working on digitized, especially people who are talking about hate speech, talking about freedom of speech in the global North. And we really need to take this this lesson from American crisis at the moment. I don't think it was a perfect system. It's a broken system. We have already seen that. And now is the time to collaborate trust nationally because we have seen that since the people have people have started working around internet governance, they have been working in silos, you as UK and then the global south, which is normally, you know, it's not part of the debate. So I think now is the time we really need to take everyone along and take this conversation forward with these tech giants, because I don't think that we can really address these issues in our jurisdictions because of the jurisdictional nature of internet. What a remarkable conversation. They did not permit me enough time with all of you. Fortunately, I have endless TV shows, so I have ways of sorting that out. But they got a pleasure to meet you. I'm so eager to hear so much more of what you've got to say. Richard, of course, the good news is that you and I live a few blocks from each other, so we will find each other and have this conversation over a very cold drink outside in New York somewhere while they let us sit inside. And Minister, thank you for your insights and representing how government needs to think about this. And I, again, I look forward to being able to travel one day soon and visit you in the United Arab Emirates.