 Je vous propose que nous commencions cette séance sur la puissance numérique. Et le lien est assez évident avec la séance précédente, puisque, comme cela a été indiqué, un des enjeux de la compétition de puissance réside précisément dans la quête de la supériorité technologique. Et donc, on va avoir une continuité très évidente entre la séance qui vient de se dérouler et celle que je vais animer. Alors, il y a trois questions qui ont orienté la préparation de cette séance sur la puissance numérique. La première question, c'est de savoir si le numérique modifie la nature de la puissance. Est-ce qu'au fond, le numérique accélère la dispersion de la puissance entre les différents acteurs ou, au contraire, est-ce que le numérique accentue la concentration de puissance ? C'est une première question que nous allons essayer de traiter. La deuxième question va porter sur, je dirais, les attributs de la puissance numérique. Au fond, comment chercher à la définir, à la caractériser ? Quels sont les points observés pour essayer précisément d'apprécier au plus juste ce qu'est une puissance numérique ? Et puis la troisième question que nous allons nous poser ce matin, c'est celle de la hiérarchie de puissance. Est-ce qu'au fond, le numérique est en train de modifier la hiérarchie de puissance, à la fois au sens classique du terme, c'est-à-dire entre pays, entre nations, mais également avec l'apparition d'acteurs privés qui bénéficient aujourd'hui de moyens tout à fait inédits historiquement, qui leur permettent aussi de rentrer dans un jeu de puissance. Voilà les trois questions qui vont structurer nos discussions. Alors, nous avons trois panellistes pour les traiter. Je vais commencer par donner la parole à Patrick Nicollet, qui est le Chief Technological Officer du groupe Capgemini. Ensuite, je me tournerai vers Jean-Louis Gère-Gorain, qui vient de publier un livre qui s'appelle Cyber, La Guerre Permanente. Et nous finirons avec Merche et Tritz, qui est un habitué de la World Policy Conference, et il me rappelait qu'il avait fait, il avait participé au panel sur le cyber, il y a maintenant six ans, lors de la World Policy Conference de Monaco. Donc Patrick, si tu le veux bien, je te donne la parole pour commencer. – Thank you, Thomas. Welcome to this session. There is a nice segue with the previous session, but there are also some overlaps, so I will try to address it, not repeat what was said before, but also for the ones who have not been there. In the previous session, I will summarize some of the aspect. My point, my focus today, is to present why it matters for the corporate world. Why it matters is this question of cyber power, cyber threats matter for the enterprise and what does it mean for the corporate world. We've been working on these topics with Thomas for more than two years now. We published last year a study on the geopolitical impact of data. We've been working this year on the definition and the notion of cyber power. And to the point mentioned by John Sowas before, we've looked at there is another study on one application case that is a concept of a smart city viewed by China, which in fact is all about security. So you can find a pre-release of these studies here in the library in the Pasio. So building on this from an enterprise perspective, there are three constituencies, the way I see it when it comes to cyber power and related to the enterprise. The first one is obviously the state. The state and for the state, what we see, nothing new. We heard it this morning. Network is power. If you, without related to any cyber things, the fleet, the dominance in the sea, created the basis for the British Empire and it was all about the network and how you manage it. The same applies today to cyber security. The states tend to focus on infrastructure. As you heard this morning, the states are focused on data centers where they collect and control the data that are related to their activities in the country. Summary and communication cable, as we know. Wireless communication, this has been mentioned again this morning, the question about who owns the technology and the 5G. But in any case, for every state, cyber is sovereign and as strategic as nuclear from a defense perspective. So you will hear more later on. That was the beginning. Didn't affect much the enterprise, but now states are moving into managing data and artificial intelligence, meaning the use of what they collect on their infrastructure. And that's the case, notably that you heard this morning. By state-controlled agencies called with a nice acronym APT for Advanced Persistent Threat, which tell what it is. They are persistent and they are after us. They try to take, if you look at a company like Capgemini, we are a platform to access the network of our client. So they just want to go in, take position and then decide when they want to access. So we are under pressure constantly. We have the pleasure also to face countries like North Korea who have two types of attack. One, the ones I described. The other one to make money, because it's also a way to make money. So they have different groups that attacks us. And the best known type of threat is so-called ransomware. So it comes, block either denial of services or block your system, block your access and they make it free. There are other ways to make money. Using the enterprise infrastructure is to go in, exploit the infrastructure to mine Bitcoin. So you have a very free infrastructure and you can charge for the service you give to the cryptocurrency management. So we have to address all of this, but we are not part of anything of this as an enterprise. The consequences for us is that very materially, it increases our information system budget by at least 10%, which we didn't have before. So it is adding and it is from an economic standpoint hurting our competitiveness. But we have no choice. We have to face it. And on top, you have regulations coming on it. So in Europe, there is a so-called NIS directive for network and information security that defines by country what are the critical infrastructure, meaning companies and what are the critical system within this critical information. And we have to deploy solutions paid or not paid by the clients. But anyhow for the economy is the cost in order to address this threat. So this is an immediate impact, but it's just the first one related to state. Now the next actor in the cyber power are the tech giants. We heard a little bit about it this morning, but where did they come from? The tech giants, if you think, beat US and Chinese because they are the only places where you find tech giants today. They started with software and data. Microsoft started with software, Google with a search engine, Facebook and Google as well exploiting insights, meaning what you can get from data through advertising. And then they move into the infrastructure world because as they were processing more and more and more data, it has a cost. They said, well, we can impose to the consumer a standard way of doing it. And by the way, if we do it efficiently, it's better for our business and it will add the lines of revenue. And when you see Amazon is a perfect example. Amazon is a book company and an e-commerce company was not making any profits. That was the approach. Hypergross, it's a model in the West Coast. Hypergross, very well. Financial participants have followed. But when you look at AWS, which is the cloud division of Amazon, they are making a lot of benefit and they are making a strong contribution to the current market cap. So now these tech giants are becoming rivals of the States. If you look at the size to start with, I don't know if you read it, but when Mark Zuckerberg welcomed Prime Minister Modi from India in his headquarter at Facebook, he joked comparing their respective population. Telling Mr. Modi, you know, I have 1.6 billion active user per day and your population actually is a little bit smaller than mine. So if I were a state, I would be bigger than you. That's about the type of exchanges that you can hear. The other point is the wealth. These companies have generated a huge amount of wealth. When you look at their market cap, which is in trillion range, but when you look at the investment capacity, they have Google and Amazon, both independently, have spent over the last 12 months 40 billion dollars of CAPEX and R&D, 40 billion dollars. Apple and Facebook 25, which are small players, but Apple is the largest cash reserve from all tech giants above the 120 billion range. So they have huge, huge means available. And I come back on these white matters for the rest of the economy. And then there is a power struggle in the US. There is a power struggle. You read it because it goes too far. And then when you listen to, for instance, Elizabeth Warren in his campaign, in her campaign, sorry, she's for the instrument telling. That's something that the US has been through many times. You think of train, you think of oil. It has always been the same. They build giant and they go after it, dismantle them, at least optically, not effectively, but optically, yes. And then they continue and they start all over again. So we just need to check for the next wave of technology development. But there is a power struggle. The point is, though, that the same happened in China where you have the Tencent, which is my view, the most powerful company followed by Alibaba, Baidu, Xiaomi. So these are the equivalent of the Gaffam, the Chinese equivalent, except that in China, there is no power struggle. This has been settled from the start. And that's changed the picture because that is an accelerating factor for this company just that they influence zone. When you think of Tencent, Alibaba is much more Asia than the rest of the world, though Alicloud, the cloud division of Alibaba, could be, not totally, could be compared with Amazon, is growing as well in Europe and in the US. So you heard this morning in the previous session about the discussion on the technology with Huawei. Now the impact on the enterprise is significant because we all move digital. And I will explain why we all move digital. You heard from Kosovo this morning about the move to the cloud. Once you've done this transition, you are faced with managing complex environments. Running your operation in the cloud is not that easy. And the more that you move to something that is interesting from a business standpoint, the so-called as-a-service model, where basically you trade off your capital expenditure with operational expenditure, which is good if you don't have the means of the tech giants, but then you're dependent of the consumption. And you're dependent of the supplier. And this cloud world today, including for security, cybersecurity reason, and provide lock-ins. And these lock-ins limit your bargaining power with the tech giants. And trust me, because I'm negotiating them for us and our client, it's not rare to see year over year 30% to 50% price increase. 30% to 50% price increase on the activity you have with these tech giants, which is a lot to absorb, an economy with a limiting bargaining power. So you need to develop alternative strategy, but it's a direct consequence. And part of this price is that you need to buy features to protect your data and to protect your systems. And this is the way these bundles are built by the tech giants. So if you listen to this, and I will conclude, if you listen to this, you say, but why do you go there? Frankly, stay home and continue to write with you pen. Unfortunately, you cannot. You cannot because you're pushed by the technology development. This technology development, as we heard this morning, are available for a lot of people. There is a lot of capital available. So a lot of start-up, a lot of scale-up, a lot of unicorn, etc. And they become threat to you. So if you don't do it, you're in trouble. And then your competitors, the incumbent that are established, will do the same. So you and we heard Jean-Paul Lagont yesterday saying he is operating in the so-called VUCA world, the volatile and certain complex and ambiguous world. And it's part of the operations. And you need the technology in order to have this agility and to be able to cope with the other challenge such as de-globalisation that force you for decentralisation. And then my last contribution for the debate talking, I believe we have an opportunity, in particular in Europe to regain control, is about supporting the emergence of new cyber power. And I explained briefly. If you are an automotive company today, you have basically three types of assets. Engineering, your supply chain, including manufacturing, your distribution, including your brands. Tomorrow, you will be electric, autonomous, connected, and you will deliver a large set of services. Just think if you're an autonomous car, you will be bought. So the company will have to provide you entertainment. This is how do you allocate the assets and how do you build the power? And I believe here our large industrial companies in the B2B2C area could become superpowers, technology superpowers tomorrow because they will be consuming a lot of the technologies and they will make use of it. And in that sense, I think the decision of not authorising a Siemens and Hallstone in the train industry too much is in my view a big mistake. Because as I mentioned, you need a lot of capital. And then the link to the cyber threat to conclude is that means this is here to stay because we are going towards a connected world. We have the challenges and this is part of the new world. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Patrick. I think that your very last point on Hallstone and Siemens could be also a very interesting point for our debate. So I move now to Jean-Louis for his presentation. Jean-Louis, the floor is yours. Merci, Thomas. Je vais commencer en français pour simplement dire que la façon dont j'aborde le cyber, c'est que le cyber n'est pas est à la fois évidemment extrêmement lié à la cyber sécurité, c'est-à-dire à l'ensemble des techniques et des analyses des attaques d'intrusion informatique, qu'elles soient à des fins d'espionnage ou de sabotage ou d'extorsion financière, mais elles sont en même temps plus larges et plus limitées. En effet, pour moi, le cyber, le cyber, c'est la continuation pour paraphraser Klauswitz, la continuation de la politique par d'autres moyens. C'est une autre forme, une forme moderne, une des formes modernes de la continuation de la politique par d'autres moyens, autre que la guerre, parce que je vais effectivement me concentrer sur le cyber en temps de paix qui, à mon avis, le plus pernissueux, parce que le cyber en temps de guerre, qui est évidemment utilisé, par exemple, les Américains ont neutralisé le défense aérienne irakienne au début de la guerre de 2003, mais il existe actuellement toutes sortes, tous les moyens, ceci s'intègre dans les défenses militaires. En revanche, le cyber en temps de paix correspond à une tendance qui se généralise actuellement et qu'on a vu hier, notamment, lors du débat sur l'offre avec le très brillant exposé de la professeur neurodome, c'est atteindre des objectifs politiques et stratégiques sans combattre. Je vous rappelle que Sun Tzu, le père de la stratégie historique, le père historique de la stratégie, a dit vaincre sans combattre et le comble du comble pour le stratège. Et donc, c'est ce que nous allons essayer de discuter. Donc je passe à l'anglais pour dire what are... So, if we... Once we have thus defined cyber, what are the main tools, vehicles to reach strategic goals through cyber? And there are, in fact, too many ways to do it that are more and more integrated and more and more perpetrated by the same aggressors. The first one is hacking, which is the antagonistic penetration of IT networks in order to steal information, to sabotage, or to blackmail to get a ransom, the so-called ransomware. So, there is another way, which is to reach a political goal through a strategic goal through the manipulation of digital media. The most common way is the manipulation of the major social media. And we have seen that, for example, in the 2016 election, a presidential election, where a number of so-called fake accounts, what are the experts called sockets. It means accounts that we are pretending to be of black power partisans or white supremacists, but always in the US, accounts on Facebook, on Twitter, on Instagram, on YouTube. And in fact, they were manipulated. It has never been really denied, you know, by the Internet Research Agency of St. Petersburg, which is just, I think, if your President of Russia said that there was absolutely no link between this organization and the US government, and he mentioned, as well as the US government pretends that he has no links with the various NGOs that have been interfering in Russian domestic politics. And so, it's one way, manipulation of social media, and the extraordinary power of social media is obviously, makes this way very, very effective. And we have a very, a lot of new ways, because digital media are not limited to social media. And there is a new, and for example, video, digital video is a digital media. It could be transmitted, not only by social media, but on TV, movies, etc. And there is a new technology, a new tool that is extraordinary effective, more and more effective, called the deep fake, which is the constitution of totally fake videos, but that cannot be or are very difficult now. And each month, it's very recent, started really in 2016. Each month, it's better. There is a kind of a competition between various research centers, not mentioning the bad guys. And it is impossible to distinguish, and in an electoral campaign, it could be very effective. And we could have a video of Thierry Montbrial here in Marrakech, having a discussion with one of the VIP present here and plotting some major operation to against the French president, for example. And it could be, you would have, it would be you, as you are now, and with your voice, impossible to differentiate. So we need, we have to face that. So manipulation, so you see here, we have a total integration of a traditional fake news of food, social media and of hacking because it is digital technique. So, and it uses, for the experts, it uses new tools, very recent tool of deep learning and artificial intelligence called generative adversarial networks. The Reso adverse antagoniste generatif of France. So, what to do, what has been the various strategies to react to these threats. And here, we have, in terms of major powers, they have different emphasis. The Americans for many years have mainly focused on intelligence, intelligence, intelligence to collect every possible data, far more than they can process, but they wanted to know everything. And this has been denounced by Snowden, as you know, with the excesses that we know, since the NSA was trying to get informed on the private discussions of the Chancellor discussing the menu of the dinner with her husband or the, and also to penetrate the information center, information system of the Elysée. So all of that has been, in my view, a little clearly excessive, not very friendly. But while the Americans were focusing mainly on intelligence, other powers were focusing on manipulation of information and they started earlier. And so this explains the strategic surprise of the Americans while they found the situation to which they were confronted in 2016. The Russians and the Chinese as very early in the beginning, in the beginning of the 2000, even the late 1990s, understood the ability of cyber both through hacking and through social media manipulation, a little later social media manipulation to, against strategic advantage. And they have done that with different ways. The Russians are very bright, very brilliant. I don't think they are spending enormous resources by the way Russian defence budget was the most cost effective of the world. You know that France and Germany together, their budget is clearly above the Russian defence budget. I don't think that we have exactly the same military effectiveness for the idea of reasons. So the Russians are very cost effective and they are very cost effective in cyber and they are very good brains. The Chinese are using just the mass. If you can conclude. The Chinese are focusing on intelligence and the hierarchy of powers is different because you have quantity and you have Russians and the Americans. It means we have high quality people and in large numbers. You have large numbers with a little less quality than the Chinese. You have a small country like Israel which is a major cyber power interval branch. So now to conclude. The threat is rising and I know that Mr Chaitret will demonstrate that. And for that we need two things to face these growing threats because the more we digitalise our companies and here I totally slightly disagree with Patrick in the sense that the more we digitalise the more vulnerable we are and to face these threats the private companies alone cannot face them because only the states are the intelligence because threat intelligence is essential. If you don't know who attacks you you cannot protect ourselves. Not only you cannot respond but you cannot protect yourself. And so in growing interaction between French, the national or international style like European agencies and private companies is necessary. It is necessary to have a doctrine not of deterrence. Deterrence in cyber is meaningless because deterrence is no war. You don't fight because you know that should you fight it will be mutual annihilation. In cyber you have to demonstrate daily your capability technology is evolving. So it is not deterrence in cyber and we may discuss that. It's a continuous, I would say, reactive defence. You have to identify your adversary and to punish it not to escalate to demonstrate that you know who the adversary is and to punish it. To punish it. And so this is essential. If we don't have that we are paralysed just to give you an example concerning all European countries. Maybe we can... Yes, one word. Juste l'exemple, maybe for the Q&A session if you don't mind. Sure, I will just to say but it's a major threat and you have to know that in the European infrastructures many growing numbers of so-called prepositioning it means implants. It means all-styles, state manipulated hacking in order to prepare future attacks but which means that our energy infrastructures are vulnerable have been noticed and they are growing. They are not because these nations are preparing war against Europe. It is just to intimidate and to tell our leaders you know we can just cut power supply, electricity for 24 hours, you know. As it has happened in some countries in Europe recently. We know on this, in Europe. So this is a major challenge. We need real defence. We need, we Europeans, to do far more than we are doing and we need an international organisation to deal with cyber risks that are growing and this is what President Macron started to launch with his appeal for peace and for security and trust in cyber space just almost one year ago during the Paris Peace Forum. Thank you very much Jean-Louis. I'm sorry but I want to give a chance to May. I think you prefer to speak at the podium. I thought during your say there is a point of debate between Patrick and Jean-Louis about the role of companies. So very briefly maybe on that's could you elaborate, you know, because... If you want to do it now. Yes, President. You're right. It's a very critical aspect. So we have collaboration with State Agency, Conseason C, that is providing us some information. CGHQ in the UK as well, it's not available everywhere. India, we have 110,000 people. I have zero information. But this is complemented by the industry. We have our own large companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, IBM that process billions of events per day are providing us with intelligence on the characteristic of a different attack. We have a partnership, an industry partnership that has been launched by Brad Smith, the general council of Microsoft called Tech Accord, that is here to bring together. There are about 60 companies where we sit together and we exchange best practices and intelligence because ultimately it's a cost of doing business for us. There is no competitive advantage to gain. And for the fun part, there is a hacker super league. So you can look, you're informed. So today I can tell you the group called Russian Bear is the number one in the super league because they can penetrate and migrate in the system in 30 minutes and the number two needs two hours and a half. So this is how it's crazy but that's the way it works. So yes, we need the state but the industry and the enterprise are developing their own needs. Jean-Louis, respond to that after the presentation by the story is yours. Thank you very much. I would like to explain in a very simple words what's going on cyber. As our moderator said six years ago in Monaco I made a session about cyber which explained the threat of cyber and the bad news are that situation became much, much worse. If I told you at that time that you have to take consideration that whatever you write in your iPhone, SMS, your calls, anything, where you are, everything could be seen by anybody who make a little effort. Now it's not only they can do that, they can even reverse your phone in order to take pictures from wherever you are because they can reverse the camera and can from your camera take pictures when you are and listen to you. It doesn't matter where you are in a meeting at home, they can listen to you from far away. I wish to tell you that I have once the opportunity to bring him a company from Israel which show, demonstrate to people here in the room that they can control any phone in the room. They do it only for volunteers and show you that they can see anything, anything you do in five minutes. So, I'm trying to explain what happened since the last six years. The computer system had been make a great and rapid progress. It's really unbelievable how fast it goes and there is a graph at each chart that shows what happens to computers to simplify this code. There is the Moore law and to simplify it, Moore law says that a matter of fact that you can see in the simplified version is the law states that that processors speed or overall processing power of computers will double every two years. So, since 1960 when this law had been done by Moore the power of computer grow in 50 billion times. This is fact. That's what I show before. In modern countries today, modern car, real cars, there are more than 100 chips. In my phone today, the power computing of my iPhone today or your iPhones is greater than the power of the Apollo 11 program computer of the spacecraft of Apollo 11. It shows you that things are changing very, very fast. Now, what happens in a matter of fact in the world in computing? In the past, the infrastructure systems were not computerized. In a matter of fact, people would not think about it and the only way to hurt those systems or to touch them is by attack, direct attack. If you want to ruin, let's say, nuclear power plant, you have to go there and bomb it. You cannot do it from any other way. Especially the same with electrical system, electrical power stations, water, whatever you want, anything. Today, things have been changed. Because of computerized, and then most of the countries did not computerize their systems. But during this, since 1980, it was the beginning of various system computing in the world. And the infrastructure system in most countries has been computerized. That includes banks, government system, government agencies, data, telephone exchange. Computer is almost everything. Now, when everything had been computerized, it creates dependence between people and computers. And the bad guys said to themselves, now, if there is so much, that time, possibility is why we can't use it for our benefit. As a matter of fact, what started, when the cyber started, since they did decide the telephone exchange and the record of institutions, the bad guys started to work and develop, as a matter of fact, the cyber. Now, what is, as a matter of fact, what is cyber? Since the domination technology of the century is computing, so the cyber, as a matter of fact, is computer against society. That is what is meaning of cyber, which means people using the computer systems in the world against the people themselves for their benefits. As they said, extortion to attack other places, to spy to do anything else. Until 2010, cyber was only aware of the intelligence services in the world. Nobody cared. Until 2010, nobody cared about cyber. There were several countries only around 10, Israel was one of them, that began to concern themselves about cyber. But still, if I looking at Israel, Israel computer welfare unit was established in the intelligence of Israel only in 1993. That was the beginning of taking care of cyber. It should be remembered that until 1995, every country was developing different computers. It's not there were no standardization of computers. Only in 1995, they start to make standardization of all the computers. It creates a lot of problem to those who are fighting against it because you have to learn every computer separately how it works, how it builds, how it can touch it, etc. When it becomes standardized, it can make the life of everybody much more simple. Only then, in 2002, because of the development, Israel established the ISA, the Israel Security Authority established the NIS, which is National Infrastructure Security, which means Israel decided when not leaving our infrastructure to be attacked by other people or by other countries. Listen to this. Today, one boy of 20-22 years, which is good in cyber, is much more powerful than a full army of army. Vous n'avez pas besoin d'un tanks, d'un aircraft, d'un message, pour faire la paix totale et d'une destruction du pays. Vous pouvez le faire avec votre clé à l'hôpital, si vous avez l'habilité. Ce sont des choses qui ont changé dans le monde. Et comment vous regardez les problèmes ou les attaques? Parce que l'Israël est en train d'avoir quelque chose de 100 000 attaques par jour, dans des jours réguliers. En temps de guerre, nous avons 1 million d'attacks par jour. L'Israël a dû être l'un des meilleurs, sinon nous ne pouvons pas survivre. Nous devons donc développer notre cyberpower très fortement. 2010, c'était publié worldwide, le cyber, par la War of Stocksnet. Si vous vous souvenez, le monde se tournait par-dessus. Pourquoi? Parce que soudain, quelqu'un de plus loin, a ruiné l'infrastructure centrale de l'Iran, qui a preventé l'infrastructure de l'Iran. De plus loin, personne n'a été là, personne n'a touché, personne n'a attaqué, et encore, ils ont ruiné toute l'infrastructure de l'Iran pour produire, pour l'infrastructure de l'Iran. Je ne dis pas qui a fait ça, parce qu'on parle de... Non, c'est de l'Université. C'est-à-dire, que l'infrastructure physique a été faite, mais rien n'a été installé. Il a juste montré le monde que c'est possible d'activer de façon. Donc, l'Israël, le cyber, l'Israël a décidé de faire un écosystème qui va vraiment prendre soin de tous les problèmes de cyber, et qui a vraiment went very strongly. C'est comme vous le voyez, c'est comme... C'est-à-dire, donner des budgets pour la recherche de l'Université, pour l'industrie, pour les gens, mettre des heures d'études de cyber dans les hauts écoles, soutenir le système, menager, synchroniser, pour que tout le monde connaisse ce que l'autre personne va faire, et ça marche vraiment très bien. Et, je dois vous donner des données à l'Israël. C'est un peu de données, qui sont très, très intéressantes. Non, pas trop, c'est très fort. Et... Par exemple, l'export d'Israël de l'export de la santé civile et des services en cyber ont 7 billions de dollars cette année, qui est 8% du marché global de l'Israël, de l'Israël. L'Israël est juste 0,1% de l'Israël. Le secteur de cyber, l'investissement dans le monde, est très grand. De ces investissements, le Centre de développement, les fans de l'UK, etc., 18% viennent de l'Israël. Parce que l'Israël est considéré d'être l'un des centres, des centres très fortes de cyber. Entre 2012 et 2018, les produits cyber s'étendent en Israël en 600%. Nous n'avons pas été les premiers dans le monde, mais nous sommes les premiers, mais nous sommes les premiers à prendre le cyber à l'extérieur, pour le montrer au monde. Maintenant, si je regarde les hauts, dans les deux... Vous avez des points concrètes pour sauver le temps pour la Q&A. Je sais, mais il y a deux plus... Je pense qu'il va s'apprécier... Snowden Affair, c'est le premier. Snowden Affair a explosé en 2014 et 2015. En fait, quand Snowden Affair est revenu, il a créé une tension automatique, une très grande tension entre la sécurité et la privacy. Parce que ce que Snowden a publié était le fait que l'Université suivait tout le monde, recueillant toutes les mails, tout l'autre et qu'ils connaissent cette information. Et cela a créé une grande compréhension dans les gouvernements. Donc, pour résoudre ce problème dans l'Israël, c'est ce que nous souhaitons faire. L'Israël l'a proposé et l'a fait. Establier une unité séparée sur trois vis-à-vis. Le premier est que, dans un pays moderne, les agences intelligentes ne vont pas traiter les civils. Le second establier un nouveau corps civile, qui n'est pas à l'intelligence parce que la coopération civile est nécessaire. Le troisième, le corps ne sera pas à l'inforcément si vous ne voulez vraiment protéger les gens de votre pays d'attaques de l'extérieur. Comment vous le faites? Même si vous créez une unité, vous ne pouvez pas lire une main. Aujourd'hui, c'est le futur, c'est la dernière. Le futur, vous ne pouvez pas lire la main, vous le faites par l'intelligence artificielle, l'A.I. et l'enseignement machine. C'est-à-dire, je l'ai juste écrivé généralement. C'est-à-dire, l'A.I. et l'enseignement machine qui read all the Internet transformation in Israel. Anything. Very fast. Not like in England. Immediately. In a very, very high rapid system. And they popped out only those immense of things that create some suspicions. Those are transferred to the bodies to be detected. Otherwise, you don't feel it. So it could be done. And that is exactly the last one in the future. Looking ahead, the ability to protect the network can only be done through artificial intelligence and learning machine. Therefore, in the world today, there is a big competition to on this area and countries are investing billions and hundreds of billions of dollars in order to develop what we call quantum computers. Quantum computers, I will not enlarger in it, but just to give you an example, Google was published lately that they established that they succeed to operate a quantum computer with 53 cubites which made the calculation within 200 seconds which will take the largest and the biggest computer in the world of NASA. It will take him 10,000 years to be done. Why 100 seconds? Because that's the only time they can really hold the computer quantum to work. But, it is a matter of time to finish it. It is a matter of time until they will create a quantum computer which hold on. When that happen, the sky will not be the limit because things will change everything in the world including your life. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Well, the situation is the following. I was asked to finish on time and we have seven minutes for the Q&A. So, I would suggest the following. I will gather questions to give the chance to each speaker to have one or two minutes, one or two minutes, not more please, to try to pick up the question of the population. So, I start with Renaud and Jean-Claude after that. Obviously, be brief in your question, but I know that Renaud is expert about. Oui, c'est Renaud Girard, je suis le chronique international du Figaro. Juste une question, M. Nicolas. Après la 2e guerre mondiale, la France, même d'autres pays européens ont été capables de suivre les Américains dans l'industrie moderne de l'époque qui était l'aéronautique. On avait des avions égaux aux Américains. Là, visiblement, est-ce qu'on abandonne quoi ? On est trop portards les autres investissent trop à part à nous, ont trop de capacités. Est-ce que nous, Français ou Européens, on a vraiment perdu cette bataille où on va arriver à faire, comme on a fait des Mirages 3 et des Airbus, à revenir dans la course ou c'est fini ? Jean-Claude, je prends ensuite la question de Joseph. La question de M. Améliocé. Oui, juste de retourner à l'Etat et le comédie qu'il a fait sur la histoire de Snowden. Dans les États-Unis, on croit qu'on a le droit d'avoir notre communication pour être protégé par les gouvernements. Et le débat à l'occasion de la histoire de Snowden était si on peut écouter à quelqu'un ou le gouvernement peut écouter à quelqu'un, on peut écouter à un citoyen américain qui crée encore plus de problèmes. Et si vous écoutez à un citoyen, et particulièrement pour un citoyen américain, vous devriez avoir un juge réveillant le processus et le warrantier pour être établi. Joseph, et ensuite au premier honne, madame. Merci, Thomas. Ma question s'adresse immédiatement à Jean-Louis Gérigorin. Jean-Louis, je voudrais vous demander après votre présentation, vous avez dit qu'on se voit par un nouveau type de guerre. Et le plus digitalisé que vous êtes, le plus vulnérable. Ma question est très concise et courte. Qu'est-ce que c'est... Je suis suivant John Sawyer, l'intervention de John Sawyer dans le panel précédent. Qu'est-ce que c'est le sens et les outils pour la démocratie afin d'inventer cyber-accueillement, mais, je veux dire, plus ou moins, sans l'infinition du stade. Merci beaucoup. Je vais vous demander la dernière question, madame. Oui, c'était vraiment ma question, aussi. Parce que, quand on parle de cyber-accueillement, et que vous entendez des rangsans, que vous entendez des choses, quand il s'agit du corps de la démocratie, et que je suis vraiment terrifiée quand j'ai regardé la audition de Robert Mahler, quand il disait que, maintenant, nous sommes sous la preuve de la prochaine élection, la prochaine élection, qui a été attaquée après ce qui s'est passé en 2016. Et ils ont senti si powerless. Donc, vous dites, comment on peut... C'est exactement la même question. Est-ce qu'il y a un moyen d'inventer ça, et ma question est à... M. Maichetret, parce qu'ils semblent avoir des solutions spécifiques. C'est pour ça que je vais vous demander. Merci. Je retourne maintenant à la panéliste. M. Maichet, vous voulez aller d'abord? OK, pour quelques minutes. Bien sûr. Je pense que, afin d'inventer, afin d'inventer ce que vous souhaitiez, le pays doit être... très sûr de la situation, et de protéger ses propres personnes. C'est ce que nous essayons de faire en Israël. Pas seulement pour le gouvernement, mais aussi pour les entreprises privées. Nous faisons ça pour les entreprises privées. Par exemple, si nous voulons protéger nos banques, nous avons l'obligation d'inventer. Parce que nous avons préparé nous-mêmes de l'avance, pas pour la possibilité d'attaquer les banques en Israël. Donc, nous devons être préparés pour préparer. Vous voulez faire des élections? Dans les États-Unis, bien sûr, vous pouvez le manipuler très facilement aujourd'hui. Et c'est ce qu'ils ont fait dans les dernières élections, selon la presse. Donc, les États-Unis doivent préparer leur propre système pour ne pas être ouvert à l'attaque. Ça pourrait être dans votre voiture, dans les banques, en tout cas, en tout cas, vous arrivez à l'arrivée, et vous arrêtez tout de suite, moins que vous faites des protections. La protection est l'autre côté de l'attaque cyber. Vous devez être protégé très fortement. Merci. Patrick. Oui, très précisément. Je pense que certains bataillons sont perdus. Oui, l'un des publics de l'Ontario est faible. Il y a trop de gens dans l'Ontario, et nous n'avons pas le marché. C'est faible. Mais la technologie s'évolue. Donc, il y a de nouveaux bataillons. Je vais être brief. Donc, je pense que l'un de ces bataillons est de la date. Nous ne sommes pas payés de l'attention sur comment nous voulons mêler la date. Nous avons une réponse, nous l'avons entendu ce matin, protéger les États-Unis. Mais il y a une source de valeur. Ce n'est pas une valeur en soi. C'est une source de valeur. Nous devons avoir un plan meilleur. Parce que si nous n'avons pas ça, il y a un deuxième aspect où nous pouvons investir et gagner le marché. C'est un software, et en particulier l'intelligence artificielle. Mais sans des données entrées, c'est très difficile, juste d'avoir l'engin. Vous devez avoir quelque chose d'extraire la valeur. Et puis, sur l'infrastructure, nous l'avons entendu rapidement ce matin. Il y a l'émergence de l'étranger. L'étranger est lié au déploiement de sensors partout. Donc, il y aura une distribution d'intelligence là-bas. Et avec la nouvelle technologie wireless, qui s'appelle 5G, qui donne deux choses. La première est de la virtualisation. Et ensuite, la possibilité d'aider tous vos réseaux. Et je pense que nous avons l'opportunité d'y réagir. Mais la chose qu'on a discuté, c'est bon. Je vais juste rester avec ça. Merci Jean-Louis. Juste, je pense que le plus... Le plus est à l'avant. Et je ne suis pas convaincu que l'intelligence artificielle et ces nouveaux outils aillent plus la défense que l'agression. Je pense que les agresseurs vont bénéficier de l'intelligence artificielle, surtout pour les dégager. Constantly, votre question, et la question de Joseph. Nous devons faire plus. Pour le temps, si nous regardons les produits dans la sécurité cybernée, pour l'industrie, pour les gouvernements, ils ne sont pas français. Nous sommes dans une situation où la force française serait entièrement faite dans le terrain. Les outils, les meilleurs outils, sont either israéliennes ou américains. Donc, c'est un challenge général pour vous. Et nous devons construire un écosystème entre les start-ups et les grandes entreprises que nous avons faibles à faire jusqu'à maintenant. Et second, nous devons être plus belles pour avoir ce que je disais, réactive défense. C'est-à-dire, quand nous nous attaquons, nos entreprises, nos entreprises privées, sont attaquées par des acteurs statuaires. Vous savez, c'est une imbalance. Et nous devons avoir une meilleure protection de l'Etat, une meilleure interaction avec l'Etat, ou plusieurs États, pour le temps que les Européens devraient travailler ensemble, surtout pour l'intelligence. Parce que si nous ne savons pas qui nous attaquera, si nous n'avons pas l'évit de qui nous attaquera, en fait, nous avons déjà perdu. La protection pure n'est pas suffisante. Nous avons besoin d'une réactive défense à l'égard français, mais aussi à l'égard européen. Merci. Maire. Juste une parole. On parle d'artificial intelligence, qui est le futur de la compétition. Il y a des gens très célèbres, comme Bill Gates, Stephen Hawkins, qui dit qu'ils regardent l'intelligence artificielle comme un danger pour l'existence de l'homme humain. Bon, je crois que tout le monde aura apprécié la tonalité optimiste de cette session. Et donc, c'était le moment de remercier nos panelistes.