 Well, good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be here to talk about this fascinating subject on big data and how it's changing the world, how it's changing the economy, how it's changing our society. There's a lot of hype about this term. Let me take one or two minutes to just frame the debate and then we'll start in more details. But why do we talk so much about big data today? I think probably it's because we start to understand that it's going to change a lot of things, the way we behave, the way we live, the way we see the world. If some of our panelists will show some fascinating figures on how this is changing, just one thing we have to remember. In 2000, that's only less than 15 years ago, only a quarter of the existing data in the world was digital. And today, it's almost 100%. And that means that all this massive flow of data can be processed, analyzed, shared, of course. And this is changing everything. In the sense that big data essentially means that we're able to do things that we're unable to do with a smaller amount of data. And it means that we can have machine learning, we can have self-driving cars, we can have translation tools that are quite efficient and that will become more and more efficient. And what is new about all this is that we have all this vast amount of data available and the tools that can help us process it on a vast scale and at a relatively low cost. And so it's the whole equation that we have to keep in mind. One example that we can, but there are so many, I know that there are researchers today in Japan who are trying to think of what kind of data you can get from the way people actually seed. And you probably don't know, but the way you seed is like a signature. It's like a fingerprint. And so we can imagine a future in the car and they are thinking about the car industry. You, we will be able to tell and the machine will be able to tell whether the person who is actually trying to start your car is actually you or someone who has just stolen your car. And that's only one example of how all this is changing the world. I mean, big data also is having a major impact on health, as you know. And then it raises all sorts of moral questions because the way we can process all these data can produce very good results and can be extremely efficient. But at the same time, it raises issues of privacy and so forth. So that's one of many things that we're going to discuss. Of course, data is strategic. And in many respects, people think of data as a new class of asset, like oil, like gold, like anything. And then, again, it raises questions on who collects the data, who processes it, where it is stored, et cetera. So we are going to talk about all these issues with our panelists. And I suggest that we start with you, German Chongdewan. You run a big media company here in Korea with a newspaper, with TV channels. And you're going to explain to us how it's changing in the picture in Asia. Please. If you allow me, I like to use the podium. And I feel more comfortable giving my presentation. Please. Good morning. This is my third time to join WPC. And I'd like to congratulate Professor Mongbria. He put up the good intellectual show in Seoul, Korea, this time. And I know many Korean participants have joined him to help him out. OK, I just put a title, Mobile One Asian Momentum, that has something to do with big data business happening in Korea, in Asian region. The picture you see, we don't have that good picture here. But this is a newly built design house by famous architect, Jaha Hadid, in downtown Seoul. And this is a huge structure. This can hold more than, say, 3,000 to 5,000 people inside and performs lots of things, functions. But if you look at the picture, small, individually made plates put together to form this gigantic structure. So I would say big data comes from small data and small pieces. In the past, when babies born, families gather around and they have to pray. Because in old days, babies had lots of disease and difficulties, famines. They don't live long enough. But in modern days, in present, when a baby is born, everybody pulls out their devices, smartphones, tablets, PCs, videos. And the amount of information recorded on the baby's first day is actually 70 times the amount of data in the Library of Congress in the United States. This is how big data is gathered together. And now we are facing the IoT, Internet of Things. It's going to be going to change lots of your lives in the future. And the Internet of Things is a new, emerging power. There are approximately 2 billion connected devices in the world today. And this number will increase by 10 times by the year 2020. And I pointed out where we are located. We have a lot to go. And some people say data is the new oil. It's a good thing that price of oil is coming down to the 60s and maybe 50s lately. Who makes profits out of oil business and out of big data business? Is it the oil producing countries or refining companies? Mostly, refining companies and analyzing the big data may earn the opportunity to create much greater added value. Something's happening in Asia very rapidly. And this is a selfie stick. In Korea, we call it Selkabong. Bong is a stick. And Selkabong is a selfie picture. The important point to remember is that the considerable amount of big data is expected to be created in Asia. And if you look at the Google search trend, selfie sticks, words came out quite lately. But this stick was used three years in advance. You say mostly new things come out of New York City or Paris or London. And then those new ideas trickle down to elsewhere and Asia and Latin America. But lately, many new things coming out of Asia and innovative technologies. OK, you know this person. He's Eric Schmidt of Google Chairman. At the 2010 Spain Barcelona Mobile World Conference, he said mobile is going to be first thing in the marketing landscape. But last month in Taiwan, he changed his comment. It's going to be mobile only era, mobile only time. And Asia will lead the world into this particular era. And I look at some of the pictures regarding Asian development here. And in the Oxford English Dictionary, the selfie first appeared in 2013. So I would say West is a little bit late in catching up with new trends in selfie cameras. OK, what about Korea's taste for bigger screen? We call them fablets. Orange area is the numbers we use for fablets. And when Samsung Korean company first introduced bigger smartphone screens, their competitor, Apple, registered. And Steve Jobs, he didn't like the bigger screen for his smartphones. And he didn't like electronic pens. So they failed to introduce all these new ideas. That's how Apple lost market shares to Samsung smartphones. OK, the big screen of fablets makes it much more convenient to use search engines, maps, videos, photos, and so on. So now Apple's reintroducing bigger screens and still is again. OK, let's look at which devices do people use most. Look at the first five countries, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and China. They use more smartphones than elsewhere. And personal computers. Many Asians think personal computers are outdated. And smartphones accessible to internet services. This is much more convenient than using personal computers. So I would say data explosion from Asia is happening now. And you might say data storms is coming to Asia and elsewhere. OK, we just finished the Asia Pacific Gateway in Busan last time. OK, I see the picture down here. Its capacity is very huge. It can transmit 7,000 movies that are 7 million megabytes in size in one second with total 11,000 kilometer submarine cable, which connects nine countries, including Korea, China, and Japan. It will be extended to connect with the United States soon enough. OK. In 2010, I introduced my vision of the OneAsia momentum. And now I think it's mobile OneAsia. Mobile is not a simple technology or equipment. It will be the central tool to bring social changes, democratization, and economic growth in this region of Asia. OK. Mobile OneAsia will unite Asia, create prosperity, and enable active communication. OK. The biggest mobile messenger companies such as Line, KakaoTalk, WeChat, in the world they all studied in Asia. This is a subway station with a convenience store, CVS. And when you go home, you just take a picture with your smartphone and order what you need and have them delivered home. But this was a great idea, but the company failed. It doesn't exist anymore. And big data will transform Asia in many ways. OK. Convenience stores, OK. Retails, OK. And cosmetic companies with big data, they introduced Dresser Index, which shows the proportion of Amore Pacific products from customers' cosmetics by using big data and technology. This company subdivided the customers into 11 groups by analyzing their purchase patterns and their sales grew considerably. OK. Borderless shopping is rampant. We had the Black Friday sales of the United States and many Korean buyers went online, ordered items from Target, Walmart, Amazon, and this is an innovative retail business through the big data solution. And China has a similar company called Alibaba Group and recently they made a record-breaking sales on Singles Day, November 11th. What about transportation? OK. Big data was used to reroute Seoul cities, metropolitan Seouls, night bus routes, OK. Because data was collected because most Korean people Seoul citizens, they use smartphones or electronic cars to pay their transportation fees. So whenever you take buses, whenever you just simply pass by streets, you are checked on by someone's business and you become a big data item. OK. What about the cities and local governments? I learned that the Koreans complain a lot and Gyeonggi Province of Korea has analyzed about 46 million complaints ever since 2012 and they are applying the data to their administration services and responding to these complaints effectively, city governments and local governments, they think they are doing their job better than before. OK. Manufacturing, big data is applied to manufacturing and productivity, big data together with radio frequency identification system. OK. They claim that the productivity is increasing rapidly. But however, only 1% of Asia is connected by big data and 99% of Asia is still not connected. This means there is a lot of potential market to go for the future for this area. And there are lots of hurdles exist in Asia and big data has a relatively steep learning curve. OK. So it will take a little more time than you expected and Asia has many different languages. There are about, you need to analyze 10 to 15 distinct languages to have serious data out of big data. And lack of skilled workers, Korea is interested in big data services but we are still relying on the U.S. companies services in this area. U.S. is probably by far the most advanced in this area. And what about government surveillance? Many Asian countries have authoritarian government structures, so censorship and tapping on the telecommunication lines still hamper down the big data industry to grow. OK. We have geopolitical risk. I skip this. These two gentlemen don't look so happy, not comfortable. You know who they are, right? And my next question is how can we make more opportunities in mobile one Asia using big data service? We need to promote more of a local professionals and the many seminars and conferences are happening in this region. And some people might suggest one Asia's big data alliances needed. What about roaming free in Asia? UK and France have this idea. They're going to have a free roaming service whole United Europe region, OK? And the upcoming new technology called 5G error will eliminate roaming fees, I think. And this will increase the flow of data and communication much more. And I'm coming to an end, OK? So how are we going to make the big data more usable for Asian community? Again, it's education. I learned that education is important, especially in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, OK? And we call them STEM fields, OK? I think this will be the most essential and practical approach to narrow the gaps in education, the economy, and the big data industry in Asia. OK, concluding remarks, as a business management person or maybe a consultant, we like to give outlines whether you take it or not. So I suggest six points here. You start from small data first and make special agents, partners, and things like that. But I like to suggest you to benchmark great companies in UPS, AT&T, and Procter & Gamble, and Google, and Amazon, OK? Amazon's founder, Bezos, acquired Washington Post several years back. And I, as a newspaper publisher, I closely followed him, how he's going to innovate the Washington Post, but he hasn't come out with new flash ideas yet. So I'm still looking after him, how he's going to do, how he's going to integrate Washington Post with Amazon services. OK, most companies must be data-driven, OK? The fast data DNA must be endorsed by every level of a company. Last but not least, employees must actively share data. And this idea is happening at the Procter & Gamble company where they share the same data analysis with all of its employees, regardless of their positions. The company analyzed the data of about 4 billion customers, 4 billion customers, clients, which is about 200 terabits in total, and shares this information with all of its employees through a work index to solve even a single problem as a group. An employee could access the decision cockpit page through the company's intranet and set up their personalized work index, which helps them with their daily tasks and decision-making. I think this is an excellent example of how the big data technology could be implemented. OK, this is what's happening in Korea and in the rest of the world, the rest of Asia. And next week, in Busan, southern part of South Korea, ASEAN 10 countries and South Korea will get together to have a summit meeting. And I'm sure that they will talk about mobile, one Asia based on big data. And I believe big data may be a tool for your future survivor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. It's hard to know what Jeff Bezos is going to do with the Washington Post. But I'm sure he will have very smart ideas that I'm really convinced of that. But next, Luc François, Salvador, we're going to stay in Asia for a while because you are running the operations of Capgemini here in Asia Pacific. So what's your take on what big data is changing? Good morning to all of you. And my turn as well to thank you and pay tribute to Thierry de Montbryal for organizing such a magnificent event. So big data, and you rightly pointed out, big data is what big, just to add a few numbers to what you showed us. 90% of present data has been created in the last two years, 90%, 90%. If we pile up all those data on the CD room, we would be going above and beyond the moon. And the most interesting part of it, my president panelist explained that in China, we only use 1% of the possibilities. But even in the world of corporate enterprise, we only use 12% of present data. So one could imagine what will happen the day we will get to the 100%. Some definition, to understand where big data is bringing us to, first of all, big data is not that new. The first time we started playing with the concept of big data was in 1993. In fact, when we created Netscape. And the reason why things are happening now is that to the techniques of big data and analytics, we added new techniques of storage, of access to information. And this is why it's taking place. And in fact, it's bringing us to a new world. A lot of us in this room come from an era where water was free, and when we wanted to listen to music, we had to buy an LP. And when we say things like that to our kids today, it's kind of a surprise to them. And in fact, that era was an era where we were trying to describe things, what has happened, and to establish a diagnosis. Why did it happen? Today, we are getting in the world of predictability. What is going to happen? Let me just give you an example. Google surprised the Atlanta Center for Disease Management because they predicted the flu that was going to take place in winter 2013. On the day it happened, and it took Atlanta Center for Disease two weeks to do it, just by collating and analyzing the data. And in marketing now, people are going a step further. Once you predict something, how do you make sure it's really going to happen and what do you do to make it happen? As you rightly pointed out for the moment, it's a US game. We call it, in our industry, GAFA, Google, Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. And this game is bringing major, major change. We saw the first changes coming with the digital wave. Today, we see a new wave with the big data and the analytics. And the change in business model is so huge, so impacting that the latest numbers we have today at hand is that 47% of world workforce is today in an organization, in an enterprise, that will be impacted or is undergoing transformation due to the analytic and the big wave. A very simple example that everyone knows today is the hotel industry. In the past, the profits would be located where the room is located. Today, 70% of the profit of the hotel industry is in the platform. You give money when you sleep at the hotel to death. At Conrad, you give money, in fact, to booking.com. And we see a lot of those changes in business models. Now, behind that, beginning, we had Google, which is the GEOFA BAFA. Google has taken 90% of Europe market share, 68%. Interestingly enough, in Asia, it's the case in Korea. Korea has its own solution, Naver. China has its own solution with Baidu. Russia has its own solution with Yandex. And in each one of those countries where a local solution has been promoted, we can see that the positions are defended. One, can you regret, and it is my case as a European, that Europe did not find the ideas or the political determination to get there. In this revolution, we see that there are three big concepts playing. One is the battle for the client, or you could call it the battle for the citizens. And with those new platforms, who does the client belong to? To come back to my hotel example, today, a client who wants a room belongs to the platform, not to the hotel organization anymore. And we see these growing what we call hybrid companies where all industries are going to the services. In the past, B2B industry felt they were protected because they were in the B2B. Today, clients are demanding more and more tailored services. And we see an example where car manufacturers tomorrow will sell transportation and mobility services by the hour, or examples like that. And we see a disruption of the value chain. We are going from a world of verticals to a world of ecosystem. If you are a car manufacturer today, you will have to sit down at the table with insurers, with platform providers, with mobility services provider, with technology providers, even cybersecurity specialist, a guy like Carlos Golden, the CEO of Renault, was telling in the conference that what prevents him from sleeping is the fact that hackers could take over 200,000 connected cars in the future and ask money for that. There was a question raised by Nicolas Barre in the presentation, which was, is it a world of U.S. technology, or is it a dual pole, i.e., can it be between China and U.S.? And I want to say to Nicolas, at least it's my conviction, the answer is in the question. When we see what's happening in China, China has some strengths, some weaknesses, but if you look at the strength, when you know today that just in the instant messaging, we are speaking of a volume of 830 million users every month, it tells you where we are. When you know that Alibaba previously mentioned, I started elaborating a strategy of investment in India with billion of dollars. And if you start computing the size of the Indian market, with the size of the Chinese market, with the fact that it's only a small proportion of those markets that are being exploited, it says that that would be part of the winning and the leading team. Now, let's be clear, they are on the fight, but they have some weaknesses as well. The U.S. have started working on designing master plans for big data, sometimes you go now, more than three to four years ago. China is only discovering it. There was an address at the latest National People Congress for the big data issue. And this address, by the way, did show one of the weaknesses of China. Big data works when you are in the transversal. In China, a lot of those information are in silos, protected, sometimes defended by administrations who don't always speak to each other. And this is a main weakness. We see an interesting experience in the Guangdong province where the regional government was the first one and the only one for the moment to edit a big data strategy, while at the same time you see a U.S. moving and federating NSF, NIH, Department of Education, Department of Defense. What makes the strength, by the way, of the U.S. position for the moment, and I'm not saying that it was spelled out by Chinese academic, Chen Mingchi, who is a chief officer at administrative office of the Chinese academic of science. He pointed out that from the beginning, U.S. recognized big data as a country and strategic asset. In China, as I was saying, only the Guangdong province has looked at it and the Ministry of Technology in China put it on the table only in March 2014, eight months ago. U.S. have to foster techniques around storageing, delivering, processing, application. These fields, this remit, is a bit new to China and they are laid there. The U.S. federal government pushes action for the public to use and to get the benefit of public data, of open data policy. Regulations in China make this a bit difficult. Finally, U.S. pays a lot of attention to the importance of its industries. China as well as made grants there. It's true in the telecom industry, in commercial banks. It's true with Tencent, Alibaba, and Baidu. One regret, of course, is that Europe is weakened by a non-coordinated policy approach. We have in Europe something like 29 different regulations regarding this world. Even if they are close to each other, we don't have players who could play against a GAFA or against a BAT. The questions we can raise given the amplitude of the wave and the revolution is about the role and the importance of data protection as part of international relations, which is a field which is open today. And it's about improving the effectiveness of people's rights to protect their own data and private life. And we could put on the role of data protection in international relations, we could put three questions on the table. What are the most critical issues? What value should we promote as part of this debate? And what answers states or international organizations should bring to this question? Regarding people's rights to protect their data, people progressively realize the scale of the data collection and the might of the internet giants. How can an individual citizen act against a giant? It's interesting to see, to look at the latest legal proceedings in Europe. What should be the role of civil society? Do the individual rights of real protection of individual freedom, privacy, intimacy? And we know that this question is, or at least the answers are challenged. How to ease the implementation of these rights from a law, technological or a political perspective so that each citizen becomes a true actor of data protection? This being said and in conclusion, we can see the different areas of impact of that revolution. We can see that there is major disruption in different segments of our lives, major disruption, whether as citizens, as employees, or as private consumers, individuals. Privacy, let's face it, is disappearing, whether we like it or not. Half of the workforce operates in an environment which is going through disruption. Sir, you were speaking about a skilled force. It's interesting to note that economies predict four million jobs in 2015 in that world of which only a third are filled. And then, as you know, individual liberties are confronted to security requirements and public control. There is something which is specific to us in Europe. After 1945, the Second World War, a lot of the welfare systems, retirement systems were based on solidarity and mutualization. One issue we could forecast with big data is that today it costs less than $1,000 to have a DNA analysis in a few years, not to say in a few months, it will be less than $100. So once you have the DNA, your own personal DNA information, you can very much customize your treatment, even predictive treatment for predictive illness, which could kill this mutualization welfare system. It's going to create a major challenge for at least continental systems. At the same time, as you were saying, sir, the expected benefits are immense. You spoke about the improved public services administration in Korea. If you're interested by those topics, go and visit Singapore. It's awesome what they do there. In disease treatment, in predictive health, in health period, there will be major progress, major, major, major progress. In urban capacity planning, smart city management, there will be as well huge progress, which is an issue for us. More than half of the world population is today living in cities, and that ratio will increase. We will see 40 million people, cities in China in the next 10 years, accessibility to higher education, and so on. The topic is so vast and so huge that one has to be humbled. So I hope the angles I looked at were of interest to you, and thank you for your attention. Thank you, Luc Francois. Maybe I'm turning to you, Ben. And we will go to Europe, but with an American perspective, you're based in Berlin. And as we all know, Germany is a country where data protection and privacy is very high on the agenda, especially since the Snowden affair. So what can you tell us about all this? But maybe I'll continue the trend of standing and speaking. You don't have to, you can... If you stand and speak, you don't need the extra cup of coffee in the morning. So I'm gonna take a slightly different perspective on the topic of big data. I am going to make the case to you that the first killer app for big data did not belong to Google, and it did not belong to Amazon. The first killer app for big data belonged to the NSA. And the first major foreign policy in international relations disruption caused by big data was triggered by Edward Snowden. And the consequences of that disruption will not only affect the politics of international diplomacy, they will affect the development of international markets in technology. Because big data is about power. It is about predictive analytics. It is about predictive analytics in business just as it is in signals intelligence. And when we have a major disruption like the Snowden affair, what we have seen is a kind of infection. The distrust and skepticism that the public attaches to the NSA affair begins to bleed out into the market. In Germany where I live, the NSA affair has very quickly become the Google affair. Ask yourself if the European Parliament is passing a resolution to break up Google without Edward Snowden, I think not. The relationship between these two phenomenon is something we as foreign policy practitioners should study carefully. So where are we 18 months after the Snowden revelations? The last time I saw Thierry, I gave a speech about Snowden. It was a week after the revelations. And I predicted at that time that if Europe did not play a leadership role in changing the policies governing big data, they would not change. And 18 months after the Snowden revelations, what we have seen is no result. And I would submit that the most likely political outcome of the Snowden affair at this point is nothing. The most likely change in policy from Washington and London is nothing. Now that is incredibly frustrating to the advocates of human rights and civil liberties who have brought court cases in every major capital in the world. And that is incredibly demoralizing to a public in democratic societies that trusts its government to manage power responsibly. But it is not surprising. It is not surprising that real politic would be a worthy opponent for idealism in the new realm of big data. The question is, are the consequences as manageable as they appear? I think that most leaders in the White House, Downing Street, and across Europe, much of Asia have decided that the consequences of the Snowden affair are politically manageable. In the short term, the heat is fading. Most states have made a quiet accommodation if they were not already accommodated to the realities of big data as the killer app of signals intelligence. But I would submit to you that long-term consequences are quite serious and they are not in the interests of democratic governments. What message are we sending to the public if we do nothing to address a modernization of privacy and security policy in the digital age? The message that we send to our own public, and I say this as an American, is be skeptical of technology and be skeptical of government. And when you see the two combined, be afraid. That is not a message that is in our interests in the long term and it is unclear at this stage how we reverse it. What message are we sending internationally? I would submit to you that it is a worse message and one with even more significant consequences. That message is that Western governments do not stand by their principles. Yet another example of us not practicing what we preach. How will we justify our interventions in the world order as matters of principle and value if we allow our own moral compass to be relativized? The long-term consequences of these changes are significant and yet the public impact of the Snowden affair when it comes to consumer markets appears to be negligible. As you've just heard from my two esteemed colleagues, there's a booming market for big data. You are all still carrying your mobile phones despite the fact that you know that they are beeping, blinking tracking devices. You are all still using personal communications over digital networks. Many of you or at least your children are documenting their lives on social networks. You are all buying things on the internet. Few of you I would wager are bothering to use end-to-end encryption. Why is that? It is a vexing paradox. It suggests that we aren't as mad about the Snowden affair as we say we are. But I think that's misleading. I think that's misleading because I think we don't give consumers credit enough. Think for a moment why it is that people don't change their behavior. I can think of three reasons. Reason number one, I don't know. I haven't read about the NSA and I don't understand how the internet works and I don't see that technology that I'm using leaves a trackable record of everything I do. Reason number two, I know but I don't care. These are the people who have decided the culture of exhibition on the internet has something to be celebrated. Or those who believe that because they personally have nothing to hide at the moment they are willing to trade liberty for security. Reason number three, I know what they're doing. I care but what can I do about it? The Pew Internet Research Center recently did a poll of Americans and asked questions which give us some insight as to where people fall on this scale. And they report that 5% of Americans have not heard of the Snowden affair. I don't know what cave they've been living in. They also report that 91% of Americans believe they have lost control of the data they post on the internet. And a further 80% believe it is troubling that government monitors their communications. So I suggest that this means most people fit into category number three. I know what's happening. I don't like it but what can I do about this? I cannot rip technology out of my life. It has become too far integrated. But neither do I trust that government is going to protect my privacy. And so I'm in a paradox and so I continue on a day to day basis because I see no better options. I call this normative cynicism. Think about the shift in public perceptions of the internet that has taken us to normative cynicism. Think about where we were just three years ago with the Arab Spring. The papers were full of headlines about Twitter revolutions. Now these were exaggerated and largely untrue but nonetheless there was a deeply held conviction that the internet was a liberatory technology. A decentralized communications infrastructure that lowered the barriers to entry to markets of commerce and ideas. Now think about where we are. Normative cynicism. We have in three years shifted from a liberatory technology to a perception that the internet is a technology of social control and political manipulation. This is a Hobbesian view of the internet. Three years from liberatory Twitter revolutions to normative cynicism. This is bad for three reasons. One, over the long term it means a loss of faith in the principles of democratic government at home and abroad. If we do nothing to restore legitimacy in the way power operates online, we will live to regret it. Two, it means a loss of faith in technology. And while I don't mean you're going to throw your mobile phone in the trash can when you finish hearing my speech, I mean you're going to be hesitant or more hesitant to adopt the next generation of technologies. It will slow the pace of innovation. Something that is in none of our interests. And more importantly perhaps it will interfere with what I call the banality of the technology revolution. The power of the internet as a soft power asset in the world is not the Twitter revolution or the creation of the European Google. The power of the internet in the world is the cumulative effect of day to day access to information and communication networks and markets for billions of people. Slowing that technological development is something we should do very cautiously. So what can be done? What we have to do is restore trust. We have to convince people that the internet offers more benefits than risks. Not just today but tomorrow and in 15 years. And to do that we need to establish legitimacy at least for democratic governments in their conduct online. It's not that people want to remove power from the internet altogether. That would be neither wise nor desirable. People want to know that power is being applied on the internet in a legitimate way. That there are rules controlling what can be done and what can't be done and there is some transparency in how those rules are applied. This is a modernization of privacy and security policy which I believe western governments should lead together through an agenda based on common interests and not on retaliation or economic protectionism. I think we begin not by asking the hardest questions like can we harmonize international surveillance policy in accordance with human rights treaties. If we ask that question first we will get nowhere in a hurry which is what's happened in the last 18 months. To solve this problem of legitimacy we must begin with the easy questions. We must begin with ideas of common interests that unite at the very least democratic governments. Here are three ideas. One, transparency. People aren't upset that law enforcement and intelligence are doing their jobs to protect public safety and national security. They'd just like to know a little bit more about how that happens. We can increase transparency without damaging the effectiveness of our services and we can harmonize our transparency policies so that traditional allies have faith in one another or at least more than they do right now. Second, industrial espionage. The United States government says they don't do it. There's very little in the Snowden documents to suggest that they do. If they don't do it, and most democratic governments profess they don't do it, why not make a multilateral treaty that outlaws it? Why not conduct an international campaign to establish rules and oversights and sanction for those who do conduct industrial espionage over the internet? Common interests that begin to lead us towards an agenda of legitimacy. And finally, and most importantly, to connect it back to market developments, the most important issue to solve in the short term is the question of extraterritorial access to data. And by this I mean something simple. Can the United States government go to Google and get your data as a non-U.S. citizen located outside of the United States? The great asymmetry of the technology market is the huge advantage of American Signals Intelligence. Because American law says any company incorporated in the United States is required to hand over data no matter where it is in the world and no matter who it belongs to. That's what's most problematic, frankly to European countries. That's what's disrupting the transatlantic alliance. That's what is standing in the way of data privacy advocates support for TTIP. We need to solve the problem politically. You can't solve that problem in the market. You can't ask companies to adjudicate how they're going to respond to conflicting laws where they're breaking the law in either the country where they're incorporated or the country where they're doing business. This is a political problem and it's a political problem that can be solved. On this basis, we begin to construct a modernized agenda for privacy and security policy so that big data is once more considered a progressive technology, a liberatory technology, an exciting idea, whether it's in the hands of the private sector or in the hands of the public sector. And we move away from this notion of the Hobbesian Internet which is not consistent with either American or any other democratic nations' foreign policy. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ben. Well, Josef and I, I'd love to ask you Ben's question whether you changed your behavior or whether you don't care because you have nothing to hide but more seriously, perhaps can you tell us in what sense big data is changing American power? Is it also harming transatlantic relations as we maybe have seen? Well, by putting me last, you've saved me a problem which is half of what I was going to say has been said. So I will not repeat it. But I will try to address some of the questions of politics. And let me do so rather than business. Now you go so by going back to the basic question, what is big data? We're on a panel on big data but nobody said what it is. Is it a terabyte? Is it a petabyte? The answer to that, the only way you can define big data is relative. It's data that's so large that it's difficult to process by normal means. And essentially what it means is that big data is a product of Moore's law. And when you have the capacity of computing power doubling every 18 months, the ability to analyze data has outgrown our social mores and norms and laws which set limits on this in the past. And in that sense, we're struggling to understand how to deal with it. I frankly think that this emphasis on Snowden is a bit overdone. We would have had this problem whether Snowden existed or not. Victor Meyer Schoenberger is in a very interesting book on big data. He pointed out what's really interesting about big data is that it reverses what we think of as the normal scientific method. No longer do we formulate a hypothesis and then test it by accumulating a lot of data which can be very big. It means we now have computing power so great that we can fall back on pure induction. You just look at a whole mass of things and you see the patterns that come out. That doesn't mean you understand causation but it does have enormous social implications when you think about reversing what we think of as a normal scientific method. And again, this would have happened whether Edward Snowden existed or not. The interesting point is you have good and bad that comes out of this. Mr. Salvador referred to something good. By looking at the pattern of Google searches for influenza, you can show exactly where the influenza epidemic is spreading and you don't have to wait for reports from local clinics of people who've come in and said, I have influenza. You just look at the number of people who are googling influenza. It tells you exactly where the pattern is. Doesn't tell you causation. They're just trying, a lot of those people may be asking because their cousin had influenza in Korea but the point is it doesn't matter. The pattern works as pure induction. But if you can do that, why can't you also do it for crime? In other words, once you can say, I'll just look at the patterns, then you say where is it likely that we're going to see criminal behavior? And the same thing is true. And if you can tell where the influenza is spreading, you can also tell where the crime wave is spreading. And then what do you do? You say there's a 99% probability that a murder will occur here. Should we or should we not arrest this person? And that has enormous implications for civil liberties. That has nothing to do with Snowden. So again, there are basic problems inherent in this movement from deduction and normal causal reasoning to pure correlation and simplistic induction if you want as a way of approaching things. So in that sense, I think that if we have in our minds the dangers of Big Brother, the Orwellian image, there's been a lot of discussion this morning about what you might call not Big Brother, but Little Sister, the companies, hasn't been much attention to the problem that I just identified, which is what I might call putting a panopticon in your pocket. Now, what's a panopticon? Jeremy Bentham said you can get perfect surveillance by creating something he called a panopticon. You have one guard in the middle who looks out hallways in all directions. So each prisoner in this panopticon doesn't know whether he or she is being surveilled or not. And that means they have to have their behavior adjusted accordingly. You know, the guard may be watching television, but not in Bentham's day, but whatever, looking at her iPhone. But the point is that the panopticon was a method of social control, but Bentham imagined well before we ever heard of Edward Stoneman or Big Data. What's interesting is that each of you, I suspect, has a panopticon in your pocket. And so what we've done is gone to a world in which instead of worrying about Big Brother or Big Sister or Little Sister, we put a panopticon in our pocket. And unless you have turned off the geographical location on your phone, you are essentially playing in part of this game, which is what is basic to Big Data. Again, has nothing to do with Snowden. As there's a poll that was perhaps and organized for a global commission on internet governance that Carl Bilt chairs and that is at Chung Di Won and I happen to be members among others. It's a private commission. But Fenn's poll showed that there was a great deal of anxiety of citizens and democracies about surveillance permitted by Big Data. It tended to be very much about the companies even more than the governments. And yet when it comes to actual behavior, you're then faced with the types of paradoxes or parent paradoxes that we heard from Ben in terms of the behavior. Now I would argue that some of these paradoxes and he didn't pay quite enough attention to this, those that relate to government really are deep and inherent. There is a trade-off between security and liberty. It's, there are situations in which citizens feeling insecure will give up a certain amount of liberty. Doesn't have to be, but in fact, what you look at American history, the periods when we lost most in civil liberties were under liberal presidents, but under times of great fear, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt unfairly interned American citizens of Japanese origin at the beginning of World War II. So when you put people in a democracy in conditions of great fear, even liberal leaders may essentially see the need to do things which invade privacy, which limit liberty in the name of security. And they are responding not just to their own problems, but to a popular demand. And I think that's not caught by the three dilemmas that been quite identified. Now what can you do about this? I would argue that you go back in the American case to James Madison, who when he asked the question of what do you do about government being too strong, or what do you do about who takes care of those who govern us? How do you make sure they're constrained? He argued that you need to divide power. You need checks and balances. And from my point of view, what was wrong about the NSA was not simply that they allowed this enormous benefit that Moore's law gave them to collect this data. What was wrong is that the processes for checking and balancing them hadn't kept up with what technology produced. And that meant that institutions, such as the so-called Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court or the Congressional Oversight Committees, hadn't caught up with this new capacity. It wasn't that the NSA was a rogue agency, it just had this enormous new capacity, and the procedures for limiting it and controlling it had not been updated. Now I disagree with that. And I think in the United States at least, there has been progress in this area. Go back to the Surveillance Commission that Obama created, and look at the conclusions of that review committee, see Obama's speech in January of this year, and there have come some useful, not adequate, not complete, but some useful returns to what I would call Madisonian government, which is not do I succumb to surveillance or what not do I say this is a pure libertarian situation, but how can I set up institutions that strike the balance? So rather than the executive branch being the judge and jury, I have other checks and balances on this. And what Obama did was, and we wait for Congress to enact this, it still hasn't happened, was say that the NSA would no longer hold the metadata of the telephone calls and internet connections that it had been holding, that those would be held now by the phone companies, and that you would need a subpoena from a court to be able to access them. I think that's an improvement along the grounds that I described in the direction of preserving civil liberties. Similarly, he is provided for improvements in the so-called FISA court, the secret court which looks at these requests by making sure there will now be a public advocate, so it won't be just an executive branch official saying give me a warrant, there will also be somebody who can argue this is not enough, you have to make more evidence before this is credible. So there are some steps that are taken in the right direction, and whatever the questions about Snowden, I think that some of what he did was shake the American democracy into realizing that it had to do more to think about maintaining civil liberties in a time of a growth in big data, which we had not adapted our domestic processes for. So I disagree with Ben that nothing has happened or nothing will happen. I would agree with him not enough has happened, I'd like to see more. But the question is what about internationally? It's one thing for Obama to say to American citizens that the government won't listen into you without a warrant. What about foreign citizens? How do we deal with that? He mentioned in his speech that he would be attentive to the rights of privacy of foreign citizens, but he didn't say why or just didn't say how. And the question there is if you want to think about approaches to this, you can, Fent Hampson has suggested this to me, you could suggest something like national treatment. In other words, if a country protects its own citizens from its own government with judicial procedures, with legislative oversight and so forth, we could say we will treat those citizens of that country differently than we will treat the citizens of countries like Russia and China. All this talk about Snowden almost has driven away the fact that in Russia or China, there's absolutely no procedure, no court, no legislative check or balance. So we're all focusing just on the democracies, but what about the non-democracies which is where Big Brother really lives? And what I'd say is if you set up a procedure in which you said for countries which protect the civil liberties of their own citizens and incidentally some European countries don't, they don't do it very well, but when they do, you might say we should think about national treatment or equal treatment as we do under trade law. Similarly, when we negotiate something like TTIP, we can ask how do you harmonize some of the precautionary procedures that we would want? And those could include things like the principles of transparency, no commercial espionage, which the Americans do not do, commercial espionage being for private advantage as opposed to economic espionage, which can be general. And you could also set up rules and procedures on limits to extraterritoriality. Those struck me as useful suggestions that Ben brought up. But those are gonna be difficult. Those of you who heard Pascal Lamy yesterday talking about what's new in trade negotiations today heard him say that it's a lot easier to limit protectionism than it is to harmonize precautions. And that promises then to be a difficult task, but one we should turn to. What we shouldn't turn to is what I would call the new fad of data sovereignty. I heard a high German official say at a meeting in Washington six months ago, we must control the internet inside Germany so that we are safe sending an email from Frankfurt to Berlin without it being listened to by the NSA. And I thought what a rudimentary misunderstanding of the internet and how it works. You can send an email from Frankfurt to Berlin, but some of the packets may go through Singapore, Seoul, or Costa Rica. And the idea that somehow SEDMF rules for data localization is going to protect citizens in Germany is technological nonsense. However, it's good protectionism. If you're a big German telecom company and you want to fight Google, it's a good use of your slogans. So we're seeing in the name of protectionism a lot of very phony approaches to civil liberty protection. And I think in that sense, we want to ask, how do we get precautionary principles which are negotiated along the lines of the ones that Ben Scott described and avoid these ideas which are essentially phony solutions. They're not going to leave any German any more secure but are going to put some Deutschmarks or euros in the pockets of some companies. So let me stop there. Thank you. I'd love to take one or two questions from the audience if we have time. I don't know, I'm not sure. Sir. Well, it's very interesting to hear I think two conflicting viewpoints on big data. But I think my question is, that does big data really protect privacy or liberty of an individual? What are the guarantees against it? What about the menace of hacking unwanted solicitation? And I think snooping. It gives the impression unfortunately today that you have a spy camera in your bedroom if not your washroom. Or are we living on a nudist beach? That's what I'd like to ask the first two speakers that how do you protect an individual? And I think in this part of the world we're already going through a controversy of a controversial film being hacked. And what can be the consequences of it? So how do we bring about that balance? I would entirely agree with the last two speakers, Ben and Mr. Nye, that people are beginning to be highly suspect of these devices. Because as talking of 1984, George Orwell, we do not want a big brother watching us all the time. Or somebody bothering us when we don't want to be bothered. Okay, can we take two other questions in the front here, please, and then, because we won't have much time for discussion afterwards. Dr. Trichet. I was fascinated by Joe Nye mentioning that we had a panopticon in our pocket. It seems to me that a Canadian academic gave this capacity for all of us to survey from behind the expression of surveillance. You have surveillance and you have under-vayance if I may, surveillance. And it appears at first look as introducing symmetry. We have big brother on the one hand, but we have all the small brothers that have their panopticon in their hands and could survey. And we see the effectiveness of such surveillance when we have the police doing something which is very abnormal, then clearly it is the panopticon which functions and is spread the world over through all TV network. So is it balanced in the view of Joe or is it still very unbalanced? Thank you. Okay, thank you, Nye. Thank you, I think the big data is not a matter which is people are threatening by governments, it's much more by companies. The companies are so trusty to more and more data for every person and everyone who use their services. Whenever you buy anything in supermarket and you pass your credit card, so the supermarket have all your details in this credit card and they collecting more and more as much as they can know about you. So in the situation of today, the big data, the main big data are in the hands of companies. And the question is, are those companies using this data for what? And they do. I'm not wondering if anybody of you getting, for example, from the companies of the supermarket, from time to time, you get the discount on the things that you usually buy in their supermarket because they know exactly what you buy, they can connect to you, they can suggest to you the discount to what you buy in order that you buy more. But more than this, they try to get more and more about you. There are companies in the world which collecting this big data and they're trying to reach those big data and make out of it a integral about all your data from different places, banks, supermarkets, whatever you use, ever they get everything about you. This big data, totally not controlled by governments. And in matter of fact, in my opinion, if we want to protect anything about privacy of people, one of the things that government have really to put a hand over those big data resources. According to the law, there are some laws which say that every data, every data space should be controlled by government. Matter of fact, the reality of this supervision is quite zero. And today you have to take in consideration when you're feeling, when you want to buy anything, people will ask you, when you fill up a form and when you put V on, do you want us to send you, let's say updates? Said yes. Where do you live? Yes. My address? Yes. So, everybody don't think about it and said yes, yes, yes. All those yeses and no are collected. You have to take in consideration because you have some control about your data. Whenever you fill a form, think what do you want people to know about you? What do you don't want them to know about you? Everybody have to make this own consideration. Otherwise, you're giving all your privacy to other people to be hold by other people. And governments, I'm sorry to say, government are totally not protected. They even cannot in many countries in the world, they cannot even protect themselves. Just lately, I don't know if you know, but there was a very big meeting between Obama and the president of sea of China in order to try to reach an agreement about cyber between the two countries because America see the Chinese as one of the biggest attacker in cyber of United States. And therefore, there are, for example, just lately, again, in 2013 United States get a warrant, the Defense Ministry of United States, Secretary of United States, get a warrant that not to buy anything which is have any IT from China. Okay. I wonder if you have any other ideas on what to do in order to control this big data by private companies. Thank you. Okay, so who would like to start? Luc François? Okay, I mean, I'm going to be honestly blunt, you know, but when you ask question about is privacy protected? What about hacking and all that? The answer is in the question, but the answer as well is related to the paradox Ben put on the table. How many of you in this room would accept to be disconnected from their mail for how long? One day, two days, one week? When would you start becoming dysfunctional because you are not connected? So at the end of the day, and I say that without any cynicism, we are paying what we are asking for. No privacy is not possible. So the avenues on which some of the legal thinking or parliamentary thinking is about is could we formalize legal situation where we do not look at individual data, but we look at average. In other words, if I measure the behavior in a connected core of an individual, I could get away by measuring the average behavior as opposed to a given individual. Those are some of the avenues which are being explored, but we have to accept that we are the one who are creating the problem by the fact that we are reachable, connectable, and as the gentleman was saying, we even answer yes when the question is do you accept to be located? We say yes. A lot of us at least do. I have a very poor answer on the company's data is that for the moment, we don't know how to treat the data because we have too much of it. I gave you the mass of 12%. We cannot work on 88%, but there will come a day where we will be able. Okay. Ben or Joe? Go ahead. I think just as we are in a process of catching up, as Joe put it, with the power of technology in the realm of intelligence policy and security policy, we're also catching up when it comes to big data in economic policy and privacy policy. Obviously, big debate in Brussels right now on the European data protection directive. But the problem with all privacy rules in the big data environment is that second you click that box that says I agree, all of those protections are gone. And we have not yet figured out a way to judge. At what point is it reasonable to apply protections that guard against things people have agreed to? And there are very different philosophies in different parts of the world about whether you should do that preemptively or whether you should do that ex post facto. And I think that's the state of the debate at the moment. I'll go quickly on each of the questions. The first question, big data is here to stay. That was the point I was trying to make, that it's not the revelations of Snowden, it's not what NSA did. It's intrinsic to what the capacity of computing power has done to our ability to make social choices. And therefore, the key question is how do we develop procedures which exert some controls which don't always just to be the prisoners of big brother? In China, it's not gonna happen. In the US and Europe, it should happen. We're only partway there, but it is something that we have to do. On the Sony hack, that really is not a product of big data. That's a different problem that we don't have time to go into here. On Joe's close point about surveillance, which is a wonderful term, you can use some of this technology for protecting civil liberties. There is, after these terrible events in which police have used excessive force against young black men in the US, there is now a movement, President Obama suggested it in having the government pay for it, to have the police wear little lapel cameras. So if you are a policeman and you're tempted to do something violent and you know that this little button in your collar is gonna record it, you might be a bit more astrayed. So that's a great example of surveillance that you mentioned. And then third, on the question of companies, one of the problems that we don't pay enough attention to is it's not what one company does. It's when you combine data from many companies that you can do a lot more damage. Companies will say, this is anonymous, we're just collecting, we're not identifying you. It's not that hard to de-anonymize when you have several data sets. Indeed, I was talking to a person last week who is in charge of data at a large European, not American, European advertising company. And he said, we find that we are constantly de-anonymizing so that we can go at specific customers on what to sell. And he said, one of the biggest assets we have is Facebook. So Facebook is not a communications company, it's an identity seller. Because once I can get enough information that I can combine it with Facebook, then, and I open that up, and on Facebook you've told me everything I wanna know. Who your girlfriend is, where you spend your vacation, your dog's name, and so on and so forth. And notice that has nothing to do with Snowden, nothing to do with the United States. This is a European company. So the problem of big data and how we control it is much bigger than the NSA. You know, as a newspaper publisher, I print about one million copies daily. And including two TV channels and internet service, I have about 15, 15 million audience. So I get a text from hackers every day. I get about 20,000 hacking trials every day. So I have anti-hacking business units in my company. So that's how I protect my services. And like television producing units, 100% separated from outside, okay? So that's how I do it. And my printing presses are also practiced that way. So every single person in this room, you try to collect data for yourselves, right? So try to collect more. I mean, that may be the possible answer in surviving this era of competition in collecting big data. And South Korea is still a divided country, North and South, communist and North and free country in South. So Snowden case didn't catch my interest, okay? I mean, spying, jobs and espionage things. I mean, every day life, okay? So we live with it. We live with this sort of octagon or? Yeah, panopticon. Panopticon, I forget the word, panopticon word, okay? So like the third answer, okay? We don't care and there's nothing to do. So that's how most Koreans face this problem. But don't be too pessimistic with the big data future. Big data will be very useful in trans-spouting, okay? And forecasting, and we're gonna have more accurate statistical findings, okay? How about trying Oriental divination, okay? Based on big data, okay? So I think the future will be much more interesting as we develop through big data collection. Okay, I'm looking at you for permission to have one last quick question, sir, over there. Gentlemen, terrific panel. And Joe, thank you for the commercial. That survey of 24 countries is available on the CG Global Commission website. Our internet, ourinternet.org. You can find it there in all of its detail. It's a fascinating story. My question though is a simple one. Ben, you mentioned the push to encryption, particularly computer to computer encryption or platform to platform encryption. Is that going to crimp the move to big data as we see the marketing of various kinds of privacy services that will make data collection much harder with technological innovation? And those of you who are in the big data collection business, are you worried about it? My answer is it depends. For individual companies who are encrypting their own traffic using standard technologies like when you look at your browser and it says HTTPS, that is an encrypted connection. But the company that's offering the service has the key to decrypt the data once it arrives in their servers. So for individual companies, encryption that they provide for their service will not be an impediment to predictive analytics or big data business models. For intelligence agencies that pick up data off the wire if the encryption is strong enough and there is enough of it on the network, it could change operational practices. I think it is likely that over time we will see interception technologies that move down from the software layer into the hardware layer so that data is intercepted before it is encrypted. That's perhaps a cynical perspective, but over time I think that's where it's likely to go. But that's not to say that encryption is not an important development, I think it is. I think it's one that should be interesting for market development. Are there advantages to putting a product out there that has strong encryption? Or is it a reduction on the efficiency of data processing because it is costly to apply encryption overlays? I agree with what Ben said, but it's worthwhile as you think of security to realize there are three vectors of attack. We always focus so heavily on the network that we think if we encrypt what's on the network we solve the problem. There are two other vectors of attack. One is equipment, the chips that are in your machinery which makes you have to pay attention to the supply chain. There may be thousands of components, some of them are from China, some of them are from Malaysia, so forth. And if you put a back door in some of those that may be even more effective than trying to break encryption. The third is humans. If you can corrupt a human, a Snowden or a simple systems operator, you can bypass the encryption as well. So focusing, the better encryption gets, the more intelligence agencies will be driven to the other vectors of attack in the supply chain and the human agents. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you gentlemen, humans, that's a great conclusion. Next session at noon on Asia and the US. Okay. Thank you very much.