 Fy enw, wrthod am gweithio, y sydd rydyn ni'n meddwl am y Hwylfa Morheir Mhwyngor a darbol Cyfweithio Llywodraeth Ffyrdd Ddaethig, yn ddweud i fyfyddhyr Argyrchwyr Macenzi, yr ystod. Mae'r Rhyw Llywodr Macenzi, yr yr honnod yn hynod y Bibliotechur ac yn dechreuig ar y leodraeth ddechrau a mae'r pryddechrau. Mae'r ddweud i'r cwmprofiad barshwydd ac yn y maen nhw'n gwneud y cwmprodd honi angen iawn i'r unig a ddweud greu'r ddweudio gynghoriadau i'r unig ar y mewn ymgyrch". Mae'r gwneud rydych chi'n gwneud o'ch ein gwirionedd ar y gwrthodol hyn o'r cwmprodd honi angen iawn. Mae'r signeud hwnnw i'r unedd ac rhai yr yrthod ag timhau a ddod gyda'r gwrthod pobeidd gwaith gwrthod o'r ysgrifennid gwirionedd, Amrhoedd Alun Llyfr George i Lleith Sir Llyfr George i Lleith ystyn a Llyfr George i Lleith ac os gwrthod dechreu ll всё bron o gwrthod i'r cerdyn ddithl dros y gwirionedd ac yn ddudd yn gyfrifannu Sir Llyfr George i Llyfr George. Felly mae gweithio'r cynllun o'r dweudio'r Dwyanc Unedigol i'r ddal iawn... ..a'r dweudio'r dddwyanc Unedigol i'r ddweudio eich ddweud. Mae'n ei ddweud wych wedi'u ddod yn y byddai mewn ddorog... ..a dining yw'r ddweud i'n s驷ennidol ar symud i'r byd hefyd ac efallai... ..dych i bawb ydych chi'n ei ddymarfaol y maith... ..yna dyn nhw'n lleidio i'r perthyn ni. A'r ystoddach yn ysgrifennol, Abertaeth, yn ystoddach am 14 oes. Mae'n gweld y maith yn ymgyrch, a'r ystoddach yn y cyllidag cyfwyr cyflogol, a'r argyflwydoedd yn yr ysgol iawn i'r ffiniadau i'r cyffredinol, a'r gweithio'r cechrytair i y gweithio gan gwybodaeth i'r ddigonfyd yn Denmark. Mae'r ystoddach yn ei ddigonfydd, a'r ystoddach yn i'r cyflogol i'r ddigonfydd y Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, a Llywodraeth Llywodraeth i'r economi. Mae'r economi a'r ysgolwyddiadau a'r ysgolwyddiadau wedi'i gweithio'r ysgolwyddiadau sydd wedi'i gweithio'r perthynau yn y cymdeithasol. Yn 2017, rydyn ni wedi'i gweithio'r drwyddiadau o'r Oris Caewser o'r unrhyw o'r Lerw, o'r Llywodraeth Catholicaol. Ond y ddiadag â'r rhanwag, dechrau'r cymdeithasol amdannu erbyn gyntafol a'r gwahanol yn Ysgolwyddiad inni, ac rydyn ni'n ddweud o'r cyfweldau gyda'r dymhauethau hefyd yn y gwahanol. Mae'n ddweud ei ddweud o'r ddoedd yn ffruitd o defnyddio'r 1976, ac yw'r cyfan ar gyfer yw, a'r ffocus yn ei wneud o'r ffordd yn ymddangos ymddangos eich eu peth yn ei gael. Mae'n ffordd i'r ysgolwyddaeth i'r ffordd ymddangos ymddangos eich eu ffordd yn ymddangos ymddangos ei ffordd yn ymddangos. Mae'n amlwg am ychydig i'r ysgolwyddaeth i'r llwyddiadau. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Not only will I offer you some thoughts on data and the data revolution, but I'll also offer you a Brexit free moment. So consider it a spa. It's a great honour. It's a great honour to be here in Cambridge. It's a great honour to be asked to do the Agenji Stuart lecture. Thank you very much. Mae'r cyfnodd yma yn 75 oed yma, mae'r cyfnodd digital yn ystod yma. Mae'r cyfnodd yma, yma, yn ymgyrch. Mae'r cyfnodd cyfnodd yn ymgyrch, yn ymgyrch 50 oed yma, mae'r cyfnodd yma yn ymgyrch ymgyrch yma yn ymgyrch cyfnodd digitalau, ma cyfnodd cyfnodd yw those who were very faint, very difficult to make out. And just one mistake in that radio message would make the whole text completely useless. So it was very fortunate that the team at Beachley could rely on skill radio operators, because colossus, like every computer Mae'r ydych chi'n gwybod, mae'r ystyried, mae'n gwybod bod yn ymweld y progen i gondol, ddifawr llawer o'r cyffredin iawn. Mae angen i'r amser ar y dyfodol. A'r angen i'r amser ar yr angen i'r amser ar y dyfodol, y dyfodol yw'r ysgrifennu ymrwyaf yng Nghymru, efall, ydych chi'n gweithio gwybod yn ystodion rydych chi'n gwneud hynny. Ond mae'n ceisio y lle'r gweld wrth i'w gwylltion, ond mae'n gweld o'r cyffredinol y cyfrifedd. Mae'n cwrdd agorodd, mae'r cyfrifedd cerddio, mae'n cyfrifedd cerddio'n cyfrifedd. Mae'n cyfrifedd yw'r cyfrifedd. Mae'n cyfrifedd i weithio'r cyfrifedd. Mae'n cyfrifedd i weithio'r cyfrifedd i'r pwg o'r cyfrifedd. Well, they build up a record as to what we're doing. Every day, every hour, every second, every part of that second, you leave a trail of data behind you. And behind the scenes, modern factories, well, they products, they now constantly record data to be able to report back as to how the machines are functioning. How can they be run more efficiently? And, for instance, the latest airbus planes, they have now thousands and thousands of sensors on board to produce terabytes of data every day. And with all of that data at our fingertips and with machine capacity to make use of it, well, of course, we can understand our world in a way that we never, ever were capable of doing before. Companies cannot only come and repair a machine that is broken down. Companies will come and tell you your machine is about to break down. We better service it before it happens. With a good thing here with the gas pipe, would be my guess. Well, that, of course, and of course, is very obvious that doctors will now know much better if any kind of medicine is going to agree with us. Computers can learn to make judgments, judgments that we thought were preserved only for us as humans, that we would forever be the best at doing, like recognizing faces or driving not just one car but driving cars among cars and pedestrians and people on bicycles. And all the very, very tricky decisions that will have to be taken at one time. So data gives us power, power to use our resources, power to find new solutions, power to shape our world, to use it for something that actually makes our world a better, healthier place to live. So, of course, it is thrilling. This is exciting. It has never happened before that we have this power at our fingertips. The thing is that we have some choices to make, quite hard choices about who is going to use that power. Because this is still out in the open. Who is going to use that power? And for what purposes? When you and, at least when I sit down to play a game of chess, we play the same game as a chess master would play it. But the chess master would see that board game completely different from what I see. I see a jumble of pieces. And a grand master, he will just take it in one glance. I would struggle just to see a few moves ahead. And yet, Maunus Carlson, the highest-ranking player in history, he can see as many as 20 moves ahead. And this is what data can provide for each and every one of us. This possibility of being able to see ahead, to be the grand masters ourselves, to give us a new understanding that can be shared. Our world, what we're doing, how things are done to make faster and better decisions. The thing is, of course, that is only for a few, to be the grand masters of seeing through our world, seeing the patterns, knowing what will happen, recognising the threat and trends and the like. Well, what about the rest of us? How will we ever have a chance of keeping up? Fine if it's a game of chess. I live happily with the facts that Maunus will forever be so incredibly much better than I. But what if it's decisions about how our democracy should work? Should that only be left for those who have the powers that data and digital arithmetic gives you? Or should it be for more people? That, of course, leaves a whole sort of sequence in speech about coincidence, because that's probably still part of the game. But that untold, how to make sure that this power is actually a powerful society to work for humans and not for itself? I think that it is the time to be concerned and talking about that concern, and after having discussed that concern, to take action. Because if we don't take action, it will have severe consequences for the very openness of our society. How it's going to work. And the thing is that also in what I like most, at least this is my day job, competition, it will have very, very important effects. The thing is I think we need competition. We need competition to make sure that the market serves us in our role as consumers and customers. If we want the markets to serve citizens, we need competition. Otherwise, there's no guarantee that businesses will respect the fact that if we don't like the offer or the prices or the services, we go to someone else. So, we need competition. Well, the thing is that competition cannot work if just a few companies hold a very vital resource, you need to be able to compete and you don't share it with others. If it's just for the few and not for the many, also in a marketplace, that limits competition. And right now it looks as if data is becoming this very vital resource. The thing that opens or closes stores. And this is why it's very important that we don't allow data to be monopolised by a few. Of course, I accept the point that data is not necessarily easy to monopolise. There is no limits to the number of companies who can use the same data at the same time. And sometimes of data, well, they're easily acquired or they're easily created at very low cost, so you can buy them for a very small price. A few years ago, when Microsoft bought LinkedIn, we investigated whether the LinkedIn data would let Microsoft squeeze out arrivals in the market. But it turned out that the kind of data that you would get from the LinkedIn acquisition was data that you could easily acquire in other places and even rivals didn't consider this data to be important for competition. So everything was cleared. The thing is that it's not always the case. And let me take you back to happier times when Denmark also ruled over the southern part of Sweden. When our capital was actually situated in the middle of the kingdom and not at some strange corner. There's a reason for that locality as well. Everyone who's known business of geography would know that. Well, the thing was that between Denmark and now Sweden... Actually, I have a very small sort of plot of land on the other side of Halensson, but it's a long stretch to try to buy it all back. Well, anyway, there is a stretch of water which is called Öersun. Today, probably you might have heard about it because of the bridge that crosses this belt and from the Syria that carries the name of the bridge. That's not what's supposed to scare you. What's supposed to scare you is actually the fact that that used to be the only way in and out of the Baltic seas. No single country in those days controlled the Baltic region. A number of different kingdoms, no one was in full control of all of that water and all of that coastline, not at all. But for centuries, Danish kings, they could decide who would enter. They charged a fee, quite a fee actually. Usually they would take, I think, if it was barrels of wine that were being shipped, they would take one barrel out of 13, something like that. So they were well provided for. And they were well provided for because they have the privileged position to control the most important thing, access. Who can come? Who can go? If you control access, well, then you don't have to control the rest of the resource. And the internet offers us a huge, huge amount of choice. You can find everything. You can find products from millions of different of sellers. You can find news from every country in the world. But the thing is that they are funneled through us through very, very few access holders, gatekeepers. It's just a handful of companies. The search engine that finds us different offers of a product. The online marketplace where buyers meet sellers. The news aggregators that collect the news from all around the world. And like the Danish kings and the castles at Uerson. Well, those platforms, they do very well from the fact that so much trade has to pass through their dominions. They have access to huge amounts of data about every part of the market. And obviously then for us, it becomes important to figure out, well, is that use of data used in the right way or is it used in a way that undermines competition? Amazon is a marketplace that links buyers and sellers. That, of course, is a good thing. Amazon is also a seller themselves directly. And very often the products they sell, they are in direct competition with the very same sellers that they host. And that, of course, raises the awkwardest question. Well, how is Amazon using the data it collects about other sellers through its platform and whether that leads to unfair competition? We're not done yet. It's an early stage and we haven't concluded yet. But we have gathered huge amounts of data in order to be able to have a qualified say on this. The thing is that what matters is that we're already at it, looking at what has actually happened when you're a gatekeeper, when you have the access code actually to this very large territory of the internet. One thing is that we use the rules we have already to do our best to enforce fair competition to make sure that everyone has a fair chance of making it in the marketplace. Future may look different. Do we have sufficient tools? Data becomes even more important by the day. The internet of things has established itself. It grows by the hour. The amount of data that is harvested grows by the second. So do we have the sufficient tools? A few weeks ago in Brussels we held a conference with a number of the world leading experts on tick and society. And one thing kept coming up over, over again. And it also came in the more than 100 contributions that came in from the public. That was concerned about, well, what will happen? If just a few sets of companies give control over the data, you need, in order to be able to compete, what will happen then? And we also get the same first interesting ideas about what will we actually do about it. My three special advisers, they were there. They sort of gathered what was of interest. And they are special in that respect also that one has an expertise in tech, one in economics, and one of competition law. And the thing is that they have been challenged not to give me three reports, but to give me one. And any one of you doing sort of cross-faculty studies will know that this is a challenge. This is the real challenge. Because if you want a paper to be written by a lawyer and an economist, and they agree on the content, and you have a deadline, you know it's a tricky thing. Then you add on tech, so you know they're clever. So they're going to give recommendations by the end of March in order, not only for me, but for people interested to have a debate about, well, how are we going to solve this? Because now, in a very sort of classical way, I think we kind of agree on the problem or the risk that if data is monopolised, if gatekeepers not kept in check, then we have an issue. And then of course the next thing is to figure out, well, how to do. The thing is of course that there must be sort of a set of principles when we design new rules. And one of the principles must be that no solution will work until it's fair for everyone. Because it will have to give companies access to data in order to be able to compete. But it will also have to be fair to the companies who have invested in actually gathering data. Because we also want an incentive for people to be able to gather data, to create services that get data in order for this to happen. So we need to have both sides of this equation represented. And last, and of course not least, that I think goes without saying, no matter what we design, the rules will have to protect people's privacy. Because this is Europe. And we will not sort of design rules that will give up on something very fundamental, which is that we have now also digital citizens rights, and we are to be protected. That may pose a challenge, yes, but it's not undoable. Thing is that no matter how much I like competition law, it will not solve the whole thing. We need to do more. Because I think also people need to know that their data will not just fall into the hands of very few companies. They also need to know whoever uses their data, they will use it to serve our interests and not to undermine our privacy. Of course competition law can give some help here as well. After all, the point of competition is to make sure that the market serves us as citizens to get us what we actually want. And if privacy is something that's important to us, well, then one would hope that competition would drive companies to make that part of their competitive edge. But if we want to make sure that privacy is really protected, well, the most important point is strong privacy rules firmly enforced. Because it's too easy just to sort of decentralise the responsibility to say, well, if consumers don't ask for privacy, they can't have it. They have sort of just said no. Because it's a very tricky thing. So a number of people here who reach terms and conditions. Yep, a sensible person on the crazy one up here. Another one, yes. It's a very tricky thing if you have a life. The long, difficult to understand keeps you from doing what you want to do now. And if you decline the cookies well, then you may disable the sites. It may not be possible to use it anymore. So it's too easy to say, well, consumers will have to get it sorted. No, obviously we need our regulators firmly to enforce the rights that we have to make sure that we can actually use them in a way that is accessible and simple. But we do have a role to play and it is important. But if we don't use the rules, it is increasingly difficult to enforce them. I think we need new products. We need the market here to help. We can have our individual choices. We can have a very strong recordator that steps in with fines if rules are not of help. But we also need us as individuals to say that this is actually how we want things to happen. And we need help. So the marketplace could provide us with the necessary services actually to make it done. So that we get products that can guide us through the maze that we get help actually to get what we want. And that could mean keeping an eye on what's happening to our data, who is sharing it, what they are using it for, throughout the internet. It could mean helping us compare privacy of different services so that we can pick the one that we actually do prefer. It could even make sure that we as consumers get full value from our data. All of that service businesses could provide if we, as consumers, demand it. Even if you make sure that data is safe. Even that, it won't solve all our challenges. Because when we hand over our data, we are telling not only a computer and the businesses or the government runs those computers about ourselves as individuals. We are also helping them to understand how people in society at large are thinking and behaving and what patterns we follow as groups. And that, of course, builds an understanding as to how can decisions be taken about us or how can we be persuaded to do things that we may not otherwise not do. So we also need to come together as a society to make sure that we're not fueling harmful data use. We need to make sure, for instance, that artificial intelligence doesn't stretch our human prejudice. I think one would, having worked even with simple code, that one would think, well, that's a question of logic. If then, simple rules cannot be influenced. Well, the thing is that when you work with artificial intelligence that is fed on data, it is fed on data about the world as we know it. And there's a high risk that you then just get the prejudice from the world as we know it. There's absolutely no guarantee that unless you want it that you get a neutral answer. Otherwise, you just get the same biased answer as you got before. So this is why we have been working with a group of experts actually to overcome this problem to make ethical rules for how to develop artificial intelligence that doesn't undermine our fundamental values. Because it is a huge risk that if you just feed data in from the world as we know it with all the bigotry and the racism and the cost differences and the inequalities and what have we, well, this is also what you get. So you need to make active decisions. You need to have an ethical outlay as to how you will do things. They will be done late March in their workings and then we'll know more. So this is decision making time. Because over the last couple of years, data has shown some of its potential. How far we can go. And it has seemed as if we as a society was falling a little bit behind in understanding that what is it that is changing? How will we shape this change? I think we have been lacking behind. Probably with the Cambridge Analytica scandal we got a huge sort of wake up call. You know, one of those old school clocks that doesn't have a snooze function. It just keeps going and no matter how annoying you've got to wake up eventually because there's no snooze. And I think this is where we are starting to understand that we'll have to deal with these issues. We cannot just leave it. We've got to catch up. And I also think that we get to understand that all those fun quizzes and what portrait do I look like? Well, those are not there for the fun of it. They're there for the data. They harvest just a little bit every time every time you sign up and you think it's for fun and for free. You have paid. And I may not be a lawyer, but I am an economist. And you know what? There's no such thing as a free lunch. Not a free search. Not a free fun game. Is not for free. Your pay is just in a different currency. It's with yourself and the data about it. So I think it is about time if we can agree on these problems that we figure out how to take action. And since it's of course about democracy, well, it's for democracy to take action. This will not make it easier to be a business. But doing business is not about just the ease of doing business. It's also about doing business in a society that also hosts you as a business. And companies who develop AI, well, they have to think very carefully from the very start as to how their products actually do become ethical. That they respond to the value base that has allowed them to be produced in the very first place. And businesses will have to be clearer about with their users exactly how we're going to use your data. Not just to, as they sometimes write in the terms and conditions I read, it is so nice we just want to serve you better to make sure that the advertising is for you and not wasted and misdirected because it was more for someone who was two years younger or two years older or another gender, but for you. To make sure that we know what we're dealing with because this is how it should be that we know what we're dealing with because data can do great things for us. Truly, really great things for us. Allow us to plan traffic to get us from A to B faster, safer, better. Allow us to solve diseases that we thought were unsolvable in order to cure the rarest disease that no one had ever heard of because all of a sudden there is a community which is global of these 5, 10, 25 people who has this disease. All of that potential, all of that and we need a lot of it in order to deal with climate change without the data to realise where we can save, how we can better produce, where we find the wind, where we find, et cetera, et cetera. Without the data, we cannot do it. That promise is not a promise that can allow us then not to think about the dark side of data. That promise should give us the energy actually to deal with the dark side of data. To allow data to be fully used, to be accessible, to make sure that it's used in a way that's really good for the individual, for the citizen, for the business, for our society. And not to be afraid, as a society, to take control. Of course it's scary. Of course it's difficult. Of course coincidence was still playing an enormous role. Of course we will not necessarily know everything in every step but in the end we must agree that the starting point is the very fundamental that is not for technology to decide our future. It is for us because this is our democracy. Thank you.