 Good morning, early birds. This is an impressive turnout for this hour. I congratulate you, and I thank you for turning up so promptly. We're going to have our next version of the workshop on technology and governance. The disruptive and beneficial effects of technological change, which have been dubbed the fourth industrial revolution, but that understates the case significantly since society had ample time in the past to develop reactions to significant economic change. But now this change arrives in digital form everywhere in the world almost at the exact same time and societies have to react and leaders, governments have to react almost instantaneously as well. So ubiquitous and instantaneous change are upon us. They have already indicated some significant problems that develop when this happens. Interference in elections and democratic nations is one form that we Americans experienced significantly in 2016, and I think the rest of the world is beginning to experience as well. We've assembled an all-star panel to educate us all on what is happening, what is changing, and indeed one of the questions that I think the panelists will want to deal with is what has happened in the past year that is the most significant technological change for the long run. I noticed in this week's Economist, for example, that machines, computers, essentially algorithms, now hold four point three trillion dollars in American securities. This is because of the automation of so much of the trading system in our stock markets, which has brought significant changes, including more efficiency and much lower cost for investors, but also reduces the amount of human control over decisions that determine our economic future. So that's an example of how things change so quickly in this game. I want to first introduce Francois Barrault, who is one of the leading business consultants, runs his own firm, and does a terrific job at that. Francois has been with us before and will lead us now in a discussion. Thank you, Jim. I have two challenges this morning. To wake you up or reward the early bird and also to talk about very complex things in a simple manner, so that you don't take your smartphone and do something else. So it's a real challenge. Despite my very young age, I've been in technology since 1977. I am my first computer and not only I've been a witness of the evolution, but I've been an actor as well. So what I want to talk about is to look of course the main technology revolutions, but what does it mean for us? How do you compare a machine to a human? When you look at the evolution of the technology, you have two businesses. The first one is what we call B2B, business to business, and it's quite easy because everything has been designed by the man for the machine to serve the man. So it's quite easy because you know exactly what the machine will do. B2C is not as easy because you give technology to people and you never know what they will do with it. And that's how it's difficult to manage. It's like a kid. You give them toys to play, you know, in the in the sand and they might find themselves with the tools or do something else. When you look at the evolution of the technology, one of the first milestones has been the arrival of the PC. I'm not talking about, you know, all the goodies, but the PC given the person an access to a gigantic world, which is called now the cloud, but the computing. Then the smartphone came and the smartphone was a kind of remote control with a cloud and then came the very smart form, which you had a GPS location. You had also access to anything else and the power was so huge that you could do quite anything with it. So that's where it starts and when it hurts. I always compare the evolution of the computing with the body and the brain. We have a big advantage against the machine. Look at this iPhone. I can see it. I can smell it. I can taste it. Not great, by the way. I can also use it, talk to it, whatever. We have five cents. We have five cents to communicate. The machine has two cents. The machine can see with the camera. The machine can listen. Hello Siri and whatever. By the way, switch off your personal assistant at home because everything is stored. So at least we have five to two. Now you're listening to me right now. What does it mean? Those loudspeakers transmit the sound at 300 meters per second to a membrane here that vibrates and transmit this information to your brain. You're looking at me. The speed of light is 300,000 km by seconds. Then it arrives in the optical nerves here and some of you know me. Some of you do not know me, but the combination of my voice of the fact that you see me will go in the brain and create in the brain a kind of memory so that the afternoon when if you see me, maybe you recognize my voice or see me. No, I have a question. I remember you that a digital fiber. The data goes at 300,000 km per second. When the information comes into my brain, either you see me, either you listen to me or either you touch me. What is the speed of the data because it's a data goes to your brain? Give me a ballpark. You will not be ridiculous. OK, we have 300,000 here per second. Anybody more or less? Terry, the speed of data in your brain. We have a we have a bidder here at 400,000. It's a long show. No, so I give you two that has when I touch this phone, you know, I don't break it. I held it safe, not too tight so it doesn't fall. OK, when I touch it, I have sensors. It goes into my brain at 60 meters per second. When it's my brain, it's 100 meters per second. So, you know where I'm coming. We have a benchmark now between a machine that will capture the data immediately that goes into the cloud immediately. And we have a human being where we are very slow. The advantage we have five cents, but the machine has two. But the speed of data is really fast. So what does that what does it means for machine? I give you an example that you will all understand. We talked about that last year is smart cars. When you have an autonomous car on the road and there is a donkey on the road, the car will look at the donkey. It takes three duration to recognize a donkey, the machine 400. The machine will never have enough information to recognize its donkey because the edge computing today available is not big enough. So we will capture a termic picture. It will go in the cloud with five G's. Then there will be a bunch of people like in this room. There will be a lawyer. There will be a cop. There will be anthropologists. There will be whatever you have. And they will decide whether or not the case has been already exist or there will be a new case and say, oh, the donkey is cool. There is no car here. Just cool down and whatever happens when the donkey passed his way, you just accelerate. So when you look at this process, you capture the information with cameras. The best car now of 16 cameras goes into the cloud, five G next generation at 300 kilometers per second. You have as many as resources as you want real time. They will decide, sign, give an order and say, just break. OK. What does it mean for us? It's very easy. You see, it's a donkey. You have, you'd say, oh, the situation is easy. You just break. That's what we call the reflex. So what's going on now with the fact that the technology is booming, the new moles law are arriving. That means new speed of communication to go in the cloud. New sensors, new quantum computing and new algorithm that will be able to gather all the knowledge on a subject will come and decide. There will be a competition with our reflex. The reflex is about 20 milliseconds. You know, at the 100 meters when the gun starts, if the sprinter goes before under 10 milliseconds, it's below the reflex, so it's a false depart. So we have a competition with a machine which deal end to end in a very fast and shorter and shorter and our reflex. We can talk about augmented intelligence. I hate this word artificial intelligence because it sounds fake. You know, fake news, fake everything. When the process of the data of the machine is faster than your reflex, then you can talk about intelligence. So there is a competition right now between our big advantage is we can correlate our sense and the machine. If I say hello to somebody in the morning, if he's tired or sick, I will see it. His voice is a bit cracking. I will listen to it. And then if when I shake the hand, it's wet or hot. The correlation of the strict signals captured by my sense, we say, oh, you're bloody sick. The machine doesn't have all those tools, but we'll go always faster and faster. So we're going to see in the next three years, an incredible revolution that my friend has written in his book, the Transhuman Code Carlos Mora here because of three technology revolution. First of all, the new most long computing. Everything will be by a million faster and cheaper and smaller. The second, the 5G, where you will have access everywhere where you have the spectrum on the real time. And then all those algorithms that will create real time real time software. Then those revolution will mostly change not our lives because we are close to saturation, I would say, with these kind of things, but on the B2B side. And there is a new circle low where technology change the usage. Usage change the business models and business models change the investment in technology. Just one example, and then I will be done. We talk about this many times, but it's the best way to explain that. Knowledge during 20 centuries has been an asset to discriminate people. The people who knows are the people at the elite. We've seen this in Greece with the Romans, with the bourgeoisie aristocracy. When Gutenberg wanted to socialize the knowledge, you know, he was in a bad shape. And one day, Internet came. Remember, many years ago, the boss was the one who knows. He said, oh, I have this information. I cannot tell you. So it makes a difference. By the way, I have a big office with five windows, you don't. So there is lots of criteria. One day, Internet came, and Internet allows with the blogs Wikipedia to commoditize the knowledge. That means whatever you need to know, you just go on the net, type some semantic software and you have access to all of that. What does it mean when you share something, the young generation? You share your pictures. Look, it's 849 instead of being in my bed. I'm a stage talking to early birds and thank you for that. So you share your experience. You share also your trips. You share your good experience in life. That means the user exchange, that means tomorrow. It's okay to share your car. It's okay to share your apartment. It's okay to share your bike and whatever. So the sharing economy has started because people mentally have changed the way they deal with things. So technology changed the usage. But what does it mean for the business model? During hundreds of years, the car was a social achievement. The car was a tool where you wanted to sign your richness or your power, you want to impress your neighbors and whatever. One day companies like Blablacar, you share your cars. So what does it mean? The car is not an achievement. The car is something you share. It's the same with apartments. You used to go to a hotel, you share your apartments now. So what does it mean when you build cars? Are you building cars or are you transporting people? Are you hosting people or are you sharing your apartment? So technology changed usage, business model, and after the investment technology. It will also imply a new set of democracies because before we were controlling the people, now people can express themselves. I could talk during hours, but he will not be happy with me. Thank you. The good news is the best is ahead of us. The machine will never take control of our life as long as we're reasonable, and I count on you and I can count on my kids and their friends. Thank you very much. Thank you, Francois. I'd like to now introduce Jean-Yves Legal, President of CNS, President of the International Astronautical Federation, and Chair of the Council of the European Space Agency. He clearly knows a lot about what's going on out there. Okay, thank you, Jim, and thank you, Francois, for your very inspiring talk. I would like to say a few words because you said that on a smartphone you have a GPS, but now you have Galileo because you probably remember that three, four years ago when I came here, I explained that we used to say that Galileo will be the European GPS, and today, I can tell you, we crossed one billion users of Galileo and we are in a world where when we will speak about the GPS in two years, we will say that this is the US Galileo because of the huge accuracy. This is just a point I wanted to... On which I wanted to insist. Thank you. Now, it's a nice transition with space industry because when we speak about the topic of today, I think that space is a good example. Space industry is probably one of the youngest industries, but in spite of that, we have to face many challenges and the first one is the pace of technological change driving our industry. I just wanted to give an example. The first modern rocket lift off from Pina Mendeu in Germany in 1942 and just 27 years later in 1969, we are going to celebrate this human landing next week in DC with Vice President Pence. Just 27 years later, the man walked on the moon. And if you put that on, for instance, airlines, it means that the first Airbus A380 would have landed here in Marrakech in 1917. It's unbelievable because 1917 because it would be a very short period between the first flight of an aircraft and the A380. And this is exactly what happened with space. But it is just apparent because this apparent overnight success is in fact the result of many, many years of engineering efforts. Today, a lot of people speak about SpaceX and reusable launchers. But SpaceX and reusable launchers rely upon the Merlin engine, which had been developed by NASA 30 years ago. And if there is just a message taking the point of Francois on the smartphone, today, all of us, we use a smartphone, but we have to remember that they are built of an heritage that's already more than 10 years old. This is the first point. Second point, it's our second challenge. It's the fourth industrial revolution. And this fourth industrial revolution apply, of course, to digitalization and globalization. Digitalization, it means that the mass of satellite and the cost of access to space decrease very, very strongly. Globalization, it means that more and more people everywhere in the world have now a space program. We are moving from a situation when 10 years ago, we had just 10 space agencies to a situation when we have 60 space agencies and it is clear that in this expanding world, access to space is becoming ever easier. And this is a point also, which is very, very important. Space in the past was just for an elite. Now it is almost for everybody. The third point is what I used to call the new post-rough media era because today, science value is no longer heuristic, but we are told many, many things which are sometimes not really credible. For instance, the people explained in the US at the highest level, then a woman will be walking on the moon again in 2024 and a man on Mars 10 years later, I can tell you that it is news or truth. Unfortunately, one of my colleagues from NASA say the same, he has been fired immediately, but the reality is that it will take a lot of time to go back to the moon and I don't even speak about Mars because it will be, nobody knows when, even if some people explain this for next year. But also, you see that we have these three challenges, technology, industrial revolution, and the post-rough media era. There is another point on which I want to insist and there will be a session dedicated to that a little bit later is about what is related to climate change. Because for climate change, space is very, very important because out of the 50 essential climate variables which are defined to measure the climate, 26, which is more than half, can be observed just from space and with satellites. And France plays a leading role in this field. There was the Paris Agreement in 2015 under the leadership of Laurent Fabius. We will be there later on. We have the one-planet summit of President Emmanuel Macron, but it is clear that it is a point which is very, very important. And to conclude that we like just to remind you, you probably saw this picture which has been taken on the 24th of December 1968 by the astronauts of Apollo 8 circling the moon and we saw from the first time an earth rise taken from the moon. And in this image, we have two messages. The first one, it's space, it's technology, but the second one, it is the point at we have the fragility of our little blue dot which is totally alone in the vastness of space and once again, it's a major challenge we have in front of us. Jean-Yves Merci. Now it's my pleasure to introduce someone who clearly has mastered technology enough to be everywhere at the same time. That's Susan Lietto, who is professor of law and who balances commitments at Stanford University LSE in London and her own business and somehow managed to keep all of these balls in the air. Susan. Thank you. Thank you, Jim and Shirley. Thank you for the honor. What I'd like to do is to make three or four points and see what resonates for the discussion and the Q&A because that's always the best part at World Policy Conference. And my points will have three things in common. The first is that they all have a considerable ethical responsibility for individual citizens, corporates and governments. The second is that no matter how much technology is present there are always people who are ultimately responsible and ultimately affected. And the third is that I see this intersection of technology, society and democracy through the lens of risk and opportunity. So how can we maximize the opportunity? How can we minimize the risk? So to start, as others have said, technology is ubiquitous. But I think we need to reconceptionalize what it means to have a society in which democracies function because the reality is it's no longer about individual human beings and their institutions. The connective tissue is machines, apps and data. And to the extent that citizens don't understand how that is affecting them, influencing them, what is required of their leadership in that context, it is very difficult to move democracy along with technology. So to take a concrete example of AI, I sit on the UK Government Center for Data and Ethics Innovation Board, which is all about AI and what regulators should be doing and what we need to tell citizens. And it's a real question about what citizens need to understand. They don't all need to be able to code, but they do need to understand about targeting and bias and that AI is everywhere from facial recognition to potentially driverless cars, but to immigration and policing and beyond. So it's a very big challenge. But more generally, where technology fits in with what we expect of our leaders is critically important. We have bots everywhere. We have robots taking care of the elderly. We have robots flipping burgers and greeting us at the EuroStar. What does that mean for a society? What does that mean for responsibility? Some of you may be aware of a humanoid robot called Sophia who was created by a highly ethically minded entrepreneur in Hong Kong, David Hansen. Turns out that Sophia has Saudi citizenship. So one might ask what happens to democracy when robots start having citizenship? What does that mean for rights? The second point I'd like to make is that we tend to think about democracies in the context of a particular country and at the moment, obviously there's a lot of focus on Brexit, there's a lot of focus on the upcoming US election, but in fact, the responsibility is borderless. And so it's very easy for me to say that I'm in no particular hurry for driverless cars and the safety promises that the entrepreneurs bring. But the World Bank came out with a statistic a couple of years ago and this isn't gonna be precise, but it's something along the lines of 50% of the world's motor vehicles are in developing countries, but 95% or 92% thereabouts of deaths from automobile accidents are in those countries. So we also need to be looking at technology through the lens of global impact, global governance, even though democracy tends to be a national question. The third is that we look at technology sometimes as an eraser of ill where it provides opportunity, but in fact, it is an amplifier of age-old problems. It can be hate speech, sex trafficking, child trafficking, bullying. Right now we are in the midst of an epidemic of teen suicides from bullying on social media. Why? Because you can't leave a playground or even change schools when you're bullied. There's just no way to get away from it on the internet and in fact, just like citizens don't understand AI, victims of this kind of thing don't really understand who might have access, where things might have been forward and how you could put a stop to it. So things start to seem hopeless. Similarly, child sex trafficking on the internet is tens of billions of dollars industry to use a terrible word for it and on and on. So we need to be very mindful when we look at how our society functions and what we expect of our leaders of the fact that technology is a terrible amplifier of these age-old harms. And then finally about voting. There are a couple of things about voting. We may go to the voting booth influenced by foreign governments infiltrating our social media. We may go to the voting booth having been targeted through algorithms with advertising and indeed just generally a victim of some algorithmic infiltration of our freedom of thought. And we may also have security issues around the voting process itself. There are people like Brad Smith at Microsoft who are talking about experimenting with different voting machines to fix that. Things like a combination of screens where we choose our candidates on a screen, but there's actually believe it or not a paper trail, one that could be audited and paper receipts that have tracking to algorithms that would allow us to track. But whatever the technology that influences us and whatever the technology is that we use to vote, again, people are here. And when we look at the statistics, for example, the last US presidential election of somewhere in the mid 50% turnout, no matter what we do with technology and no matter what we experience, if we don't go vote, democracy is going to be in jeopardy. And then finally truth. I've spent a lot of time the last couple of years thinking about truth in my ethics advisory work in particular with large corporate clients. Compromise truth or the assault on truth, whatever you want to call it, whether it's fake news or deep fakes, whether it's ignoring scientific evidence or whether it's cherry picking your favorite facts so that you can get the outcome that you wish. And you're not inconvenienced by the facts that don't work for you. I genuinely believe that compromise truth is the greatest global systemic risk of our time. It undergirds every other challenge we have from climate change to global governance failure to political system issues to financial system meltdown. And democracy hinges and our society, our trust in institutions, our trust in each other hinge on truth. So to the extent and accountability of our leaders hinges on truth. So to the extent we don't have truth, to the extent that technology can amplify fake news, that it can amplify compromise truth, it is a threat to democracy. I genuinely do not believe that an alternatively factual democracy is possible. And I think I'll end there and welcome the conversation. Thank you, Susan. Thank you for your contribution to keeping us on time. I'm sure Holger May will join you in that. Holger May has a title that most of us would kill for in our organizations. He is the Vice President for Advanced Concepts at Airbus. Advances, Holger. Thank you. Some walk, some sit, I stand. So I want to talk about two points basically and illustrate them a little bit. One is society and the indelible relationship of high tech and particular artificial intelligence with society and then with the economy and the digitalization of economy. So the first point is, of course, the relationship of freedom and security as it is related to surveillance and control which we all experience happens every day all the time more and more. Now, freedom and security is not a trader of a relationship as it's often being put. You have total security, no freedom, or total freedom, no security. I think without a certain degree of security we probably have no freedom and cannot enjoy any freedom. The freedom of the people in the World Trade Center was to either jump out of the window or get burned and that's, of course, not the freedom we mean. There are sometimes in some countries after sunset two groups of people in the streets, criminals and victims. And that's also not the freedom we want. So we have to look into the question of how we structure and organize all our societies, be it China, be it the West, whatever, in this relationship of security and freedom. Now, I want you to imagine 5 p.m. rush hour in Paris, Washington, or any big city and you walk through the streets, what do you see? Almost every intersection is blocked because people drive into the intersection although they cannot pass. It is because they are unattentive or just selfish and ruthless, whatever, but it doesn't work. Now you have the autonomous car and the artificial intelligence-based traffic control system and you can easily imagine that this problem will be solved. There will be a smooth flow of traffic and it works. So far so good. Until a person, a pedestrian, steps onto the street. Now the car will stop. What does this person learn? Hey, I can walk onto the street whenever I want and all traffic stops. So we will experience a complete breakdown of traffic because of the behavior of people. Now there are two ways to deal with it. Either you program the car in a way that once in a while overruns the pedestrians and they learn to pay attention or you have video surveillance anyway everywhere and there is, of course, biometric data recognition and you step onto the street and then you will read on your mobile device while we just deducted 1,000 euros from your account. If you do that again, it will be 5,000. If you do it once more, you will be in prison for one month. So we learn to behave, right? Now the individual in the past was doing a crime or a terror act, whatever. It was a very regional, probably only local event but with the empowerment of people in particular with modern technology, be it biological weapons, be it cyber weapons, be it misbehavior in a society, in a structure and an environment which is networked, you have cascading effects. So the impact will be significant and now it's about the relationship between the individual and the collective. And I think it doesn't take much imagination that China has a clear idea about the relationship between collective and individual as we have and it's probably a little bit different but it's important to talk about it and to understand that no matter what society we have to have to talk about this relationship and how we balance individual and collective. Now I have argued that security is a prerequisite for freedom. This is clear in the social, I mean if you are hungry, you don't ask for freedom of press as we have heard from Marxist before but this also applies to the security in the streets. Now how does a collective protect against individuals who misbehave and how to protect the individual of course? Now I think we should start thinking about something which my friend Parakana argued so nicely. We need probably to adapt all our societies to that in a way to think about a combination of Switzerland and Singapore. Switzerland because you discussed locally about fundamental issues, important issues, values and Singapore because you have the very best technocrats working in the government. And I think we have to creatively think about it because only the combination will probably do it. Now the economy. We all know the answer is digitalization but what was the question? It is I think about turning art into science at the moment. It is engineering art, not science. It's the art of war, it's the art of cooking. Now if you go to a restaurant with a three star Michelin chef and he cooks a wonderful dish and he gives you the recipe. You have the recipe in your hands and you go back to the kitchen and cook the same thing, exactly what is written on paper. It will be a nice dish but not as good as the dish from the three star Michelin chef. Why is this so? Because documentation is never complete and there is something which has to do with feeling, experience, whatever. So you read there is take a little bit of salt but what is a little bit? Now if this is digitalized, it is a precise number. We call it production data. If you have the production data you know how to do it precisely and exactly as the three star Michelin cook. So how can Germany in the future export all the Mercedes BMW Porsche? If everybody, at least most of the countries can produce the car in exactly the same quality because it is based on a digitalized production where you have the production data at some stage. Steal it, buy it, you know, have spies, whatever. The problem is how can we make sure that we stay ahead in a sense and the interesting thing that invention only helps very shortly because if you're an artist, a sculptor, like a nice sculptor, if you put it into the 3D printer you have two million originals. It's not distinguishable anymore. So Germany invented the telefax but Japan produced the telefaxes and marketed it and made the money. Even if you are like in China for a long time, just a copycat economy, you make money not by just inventing things, you make it by doing the application and sell it, sell it. So the problem is that we are challenged with innovation and high quality manufacturing as we move into the digitalization which is of course without alternative but nevertheless it will be a big challenge. Now I think the problem with the intelligence in this whole part is I'm not so much concerned about artificial intelligence, I'm more concerned about human stupidity. The question how we use this and I think if we think it through, it's not about intelligence per se that doesn't necessarily do us any good as we see with many modern artifacts and dictators in history, they were not necessarily stupid. But it is related to a civilization, to culture, to values, to the question of reason and reasoning and that is something where we might still have a certain competitive advantage to very intelligent machines. As I argued two years ago here at the same place that referring to Ray Kurzweil who wrote an article about 20 years ago and the title was so wonderful, the title was the computers will convince us that we are superfluous. And if we don't one day end up in the zoo and little Robert Babies make fun of us, we better start thinking about our own role as human beings and how we use artificial, so-called artificial intelligence for the good which is related to culture and civilizations. I think we need this debate in all of our societies. We call our different societies will deal with this challenge differently. Thank you very much. Our final speaker for the morning is John Sawyers who my first knew a long time ago as very well-informed deputy chief of mission of Britain in Washington. And a few years after that I was surprised to learn that he'd become head of MI6. John today has a very important business consultancy and he's going to tell us all about everything we need to know. Thank you Jim and thank you very much for inviting me back to the World Policy Conference. It's very hard to build on the wide variety of thoughts we've had from the first four panelists but I want to put it into a global strategic context because there's absolutely no doubt that as we move towards or rather back to a world of great power rivalry where the institutions that we built up in the period after the Second World War are basically in decline and are being replaced by competition between great powers almost a 19th century world with the United States and China being by far the biggest two and Russia, Europe, India being and Japan being players as well. In this great power rivalry technology is playing a central role. Let me just focus initially on the rivalry between the United States and China. United States has some historical advantages here. It has the biggest corporates like the ones we all know, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix, Google and so on. But China is catching up quite fast not just in China but beyond China's borders as well but the United States has a lead in corporate development. Secondly, United States dominates the operating systems through Microsoft, through the Android system, through Apple. The United States is definitely well ahead and has global reach for the operating systems of the IT that we all use. And thirdly, United States has an iron grip at the moment on the semiconductor industry and the intellectual property that's associated with producing semiconductors. So that's where the United States is ahead. Where China is ahead is first of all on the internet of things. China, it's estimated, will be producing about 95% of the elements that go into the internet of things. All those computer devices in our homes and in our businesses that will hold that together. China is also ahead in telecom's network infrastructure and I will come back to that to the arguments of Huawei and ZTE. And there's a question as to whether China is ahead of the United States on machine learning, what others call artificial intelligence. But there's no doubt that China is making a huge state-led research investment in machine learning. Perhaps drawing on what President Putin famously said a few years ago, that the nation that dominates machine learning will control the world. So that's the sort of the competition at the moment. Let me just focus briefly on the telecom's network infrastructure because the argument about Huawei and ZTE in intelligent circles, I became Chief of MI6 in 2009 and we had a big split in the Five Eyes, United States, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand. Between those countries that accepted, we have the former Prime Minister of Australia here, he was familiar with these arguments. There are those countries that refuse to allow Chinese telecom's equipment into their national systems and there are those like the UK and Canada that accepted some degree of presence of Huawei equipment under very strict controls and these arguments have been running for 10 years or so. But what's become now, what's happened recently is Huawei and ZTE have become part of the argument between China and the United States for dominance in technology generally. I don't think the intelligence argument is a new one. What is new is that with the advent of 5G telecom systems, if you rely solely upon Chinese manufacturers, then you are going to be in serious jeopardy of having your systems subject to control by China. Now, that's true if you have your entire system and India, for example, will rely entirely on Chinese equipment for its 4 and 5G systems. But that doesn't mean you have to go to the other end of the spectrum and have zero equipment from China in your systems and this is where the argument lies. But the United States is not only pursuing an intelligence argument here, it's pursuing an industrial policy argument. The United States, through a series of steps over the last 20 years, has found itself without a national champion in telecoms network infrastructure. And I think President Trump is trying to reestablish the United States as a player in the telecoms world. And it's, I think, a bargaining chip also in this wider US-China trade relationship. So that's on the telecom side. On defense, there have been some very interesting developments recently. As this rivalry between the United States and China hots up, both capitals have to think about what if the worst happens? We have to plan ahead to the possibility of an armed conflict between the United States and China. Now, the Chinese are developing very sophisticated systems but are heavily dependent upon the US in certain areas, for example, semiconductor provision. But the United States isn't safe either because so many components of US defense systems are made in China. And what we're seeing is a move, both in Beijing and in Washington, to decouple their defense industries so that they are not dependent upon the other country just in case the worst comes to the worst and the two countries end up in conflict. Now, I think what is happening in the defense field is happening more widely as well, but it's sharpest and most prominent in the defense field. We have moved past peak globalization. The scale of globalization that we saw developing the 90s and 2000s has peaked and is probably now in decline. As both the United States and China seek to decouple their economies from one another, primarily for defense but also for industrial purposes. In the security world, we're seeing China develop an extraordinarily sophisticated surveillance system of its own population. One advantage the Chinese have is they're not particularly concerned about human rights and they have no concept of data privacy. In the world, there are three concepts of data. In Europe is controlled by the individual, in America is controlled by the corporate, in China is controlled by the state. And that means in China the state have got almost unlimited use of your data to control and to know where you are. Now some of them is the sort of scenarios that Holger was describing of if you go to Beijing and you step off a payment and there's a red light, then two days later you get a letter from the authority saying you were seen jaywalking crossing a crossing when you shouldn't have done so and here's a fine. But of course they don't use it to control people on the pavements. What they do is use it to monitor potential dissidents and China now has a surveillance system that Joseph Stalin would have died for. It is more effective, it is more thorough and it's less violent and more accepted by the population. So in the world of surveillance and control, China is no doubt far ahead of all other countries in this realm. And then lastly just a couple of words on cyber. Cyber of course is the means by which countries and corporates and criminals can hack into other people's systems either to cause damage or to steal intellectual property or to hold you to ransom. We all know the cyber world, we all know how cyber defenses have improved but cyber attack capabilities have also improved. In this area I think the major powers are very conscious of their own vulnerabilities. In the West we're conscious that our entire systems are based on IT networks that shape our daily lives and if our IT systems were brought down, our banking system, our public healthcare systems and so on then the scale of damage to our stability would be great. It's even more the case in autocratic countries like China and Russia where they feel themselves very vulnerable to exploitation, to the stirring up of unrest in their countries and we're seeing a progressive move by autocratic countries to take control of their internet space so that they cannot be subject to disruptive cyber attacks. We saw earlier this year, Russia experimenting with cutting their internet off from the rest of the world. This was seen as an emergency step that they might need to take in a crisis. I think it will be surprising if Russia develops the capability to cut itself off from the rest of the world and then doesn't use it as the norm, as the status quo and where Russia is leading in this field, China is also taking a very close interest and of course there are other countries, Iran being an obvious example which is taking a close interest in having control over its own domestic internet and separate from the global internet in the same way that they want to de-dollarize their economies, they want to reduce their dependence on the US-led infrastructure system. So I think in all those areas, whether it's just straight industrial competition, whether it's the dominance of the machine learning space, whether it's for defense competition and of course this is spreading into, in defense, it's spreading into the mergers and acquisitions world where every entity, whether it's the European Union or Japan, as well as the United States is giving themselves greater powers to scrutinize control of technology takeovers. Whether it's in the cyber world, this, the role of technology is central to the great power rivalry which is going to be the design model of the world of the coming decade or two. Thank you. John, thank you very much for sobering us up. We clearly need it in terms of what we think about, how excited we get about technology. I'd now like to take some questions from the audience. If you would give us your name and if you have any particular association that would be important for us to know. For example, if you have a question for Holger about Airbus and you happen to be working for Boeing, please tell us that and I'll start right here. I'm Matilde Pak. I'm an economist at the OECD working on the Korea-Sweden desk. I have a question for Mr. Barrow regarding his comment on the knowledge availability on internet. Completely agree with you. I mean, when I compare my very first presentation and when I was a young student and right now, I mean, there's a big, big gap. But this requires to have the digital skills and for that we have a big gap between the young generation and the elderly. In the case of Korea, which is a really high technology society, we have the young generation which has almost no problem of basic skills why the elderly do. So what would you suggest so that the whole population can benefit, make the most of technology changes? Why also be aware of the dangers that Mrs. Luto raised? What would you recommend? And I know that in that matter, we often recommend lifelong learning. And in that case, how should it be done? Should the government centralize and take care of lifelong learning or should it be taken care of the level of firms? And if so, how would firms get the right incentive to promote this life learning? Thank you. Thank you. It's a very good and interesting question. One of the obsessions right now regarding the proliferation of data is what I call digital inclusion. As you remember, when few years ago, you have access to limited data. Now it's huge and huge. Data without correlation or no meanings has zero effect. Now technology can help as well. Imagine you are on vacation with 25 people in a big home in the south of France and every morning you have a room full of socks, pants, trousers and whatever. Those are the data, okay? If somebody has no knowledge how to put things together in a house like me as an example, I will be totally lost. Now the new algorithm will put information together, socks with socks, with age, with family and whatever. So the next generation algorithm are creating correlation with datas that men send to the person. Think about all the closers in a room. And most of the leaders in the digital technology have again an obsession, which is to make data relevant to people or to some or to communities. And the next generation algorithm does that. There is a huge effort right now in country cities to bring technology to people because before you had to go to technology and I'm very confident that it will help the older generation to have access to these fantastic tools. Well said, Francois. The next hand I saw was over here. Wait for the mic, please. My name is Stanislas Cozon, Capgemini. Question to you, Holger. I was intrigued by this question of security versus freedom. And the example you gave of crossing roads and autonomous vehicles and the behavior of people I thought this is a profound situation. I mean, it's telling. And my question would be, what is the role of education in helping people learn how to behave as free citizens in our civilization in the new world of new technologies? Well, education is of course the key and I wish everybody would be well educated and has good manners, behave nicely. But of course, human beings often don't. And this is the question, how then we deal with those who don't. Because we usually say, well, for instance, at the end of the day, the computers need to be controlled by the human being. I say by Mr. Hitler, by Mr. Stalin, by Mr. Mao, by Mr. Pol Pot. No, no, only by good guys, but who's that? Who defines that? That's the problem. And of course, if we say, well, this is something, how human beings should interact. Well, if you look at the social structure of street gangs in Los Angeles or Mexico City, you would see this is a different behavior than we all have here. So yes, education, it would be great if this works and if we have only good people, so to speak. But there are bad guys out there for whatever reason and we have to somehow deal with this or with people who misbehave and all that. And a state that comes up with the rules but doesn't care about rule enforcement undermines the respectful law, which is a problem. And I want the local communities, if you wish, to discuss, well, should we have a speed limit of 30 kilometers per hour in front of the school? And if the people say, by huge majority, yes, that's a good idea to protect our children, then I don't want people to speed there. So either you come up with a rule there and then you have radar checks and you make sure that people behave or you don't care and undermine the whole respectful law. I wish everybody would respect 30 anyway but we know how few people do if you don't have checks. Susan, you had one finger. I just wanted to address this very important question as well. There's a lot that we don't know about behavior. So for example, if you have a bot babysitter, is it okay to be insulting in front of your child to the bot? I mean, after all, it's a machine. Are we gonna be educating children to be disrespectful to Siri or Amazon Alexa even though we tell them that they should be respectful to adults? So these blurred boundaries of behavior with machines are quite complicated. And as was just said, who gets to decide in terms of the programming of these machines? There was an incident many of you may have seen a couple of years ago with a Microsoft bot called Tay that was put out a bit too early and started spouting incredibly racist and anti-Semitic remarks. And Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft promptly withdrew Tay and fixed the problem. But the reality is that many stakeholders have a say in behavior these days in ways that are unprecedented. And I think we need to watch that very carefully. How scary is that? We now have about 15 minutes left so I encourage both speakers and the questioners in the audience to be very succinct. We'll come down here. The next hand I saw was here. Merci. Monsieur Laichoubi, ancien ministre, politologue. Je voudrais suggérer l'élargissement du spectre du débat avec une question essentielle de rapport entre science et éthique. Nous avons eu deux grandes phases. La première phase avec Newton, la place Maxwell. Se chauffer, se soigner, voyager, communiquer. Puis les années 30, on a eu une poussée exponentielle des technologies avec des dérives, le plutonium, le mot pal, le sang contaminé, le chère nobile. Des grandes désillusions. Et puis on peut additioner, vous l'avez évoqué, les grandes compétitions géopolitiques où les uns et les autres considèrent que les nouvelles technologies la rassurent la prééminence. 61 académies des sciences européennes réunies à la commémoration des 350 années de l'Académie des sciences françaises ont estimé qu'il y a un risque de rupture entre la science et la société. Alors la question, bien sûr, on revient à la question de l'éthique, quelle stratégie de recherche quand on sait que les Japonais ont décidé d'inverser totalement leur recherche de la mettre à la disposition du besoin social. Alors, est-ce que nous sommes tous concernés par certains types, un angle géopolitique exacerbé? Est-ce que cela nous concerne la suprématie d'un tel sur l'autre? Est-ce que l'humanité n'a pas besoin de notre débat? Merci. François, would you take a crack at that? Je vais répondre en français à M. le ministre. En fait, j'en ai un petit peu parlé. Dans le type de projet technologique, il y a deux types de progrès. Il y a le projet encadré. Et vous avez cité toutes les révolutions industrielles avec d'ailleurs des cycles de champetteur très, très long. Et en fait, on a la science cadrée, a mis en place un process, un framework qui permettait de faire progresser l'humanité. Et puis un jour, internet est arrivé, le smartphone, etc. Et on a transféré cette puissance de feu à l'individu. Et je l'ai déjà dit plusieurs fois à la conférence. Internet a été la plus grosse révolution industrielle en termes de création de valeur sans aucune gouvernance. Au début, internet était un outil de communication entre A et B, les universités, et devenu un outil de communication entre les personnes. Les SMS, on refait juste un peu d'histoire. Au début, c'était un 9-1-1, c'est-à-dire un numéro d'urgence au Japon qui a été détourné par les adolescents japonais qui sont très timides, et ils ont utilisé donc... il y avait 300 caractères à faire une sorte de jeu de séduction, etc. Et là où le bablaise, où là c'est à la fois inquiétant et fascinant, c'est que quand vous donnez un outil à des individus où vous contrôlez, débrouillez-vous, vous ne savez pas où ça va. On a eu le printemps arabe, on a eu les gilets jaunes, qui sont des nouvelles formes de démocratie. Je ne discute pas le bien fondé, mais ça a complètement échappé au système organisé régalien qui encadre. Donc, par rapport à ce que vous dites, c'est qu'il y a une ambivalence, c'est-à-dire que soit on continue à cadrer le progrès, ce qui a toujours été fait dans les machines, soit on donne aux citoyens des outils pour qu'ils se développent communiques. Et là, finalement, on ne sait pas comment ça va, puisqu'il n'y a pas de gouvernance internet. Que vous gagnez 100 millions de dollars sur une transaction où vous demandez l'heure, on ne réinjecte pas la création de valeur là-dedans. C'est pour ça qu'il y a des dérives, absolument, et qu'il convient de les encadrer, mais chaque fois qu'on va encadrer quelque chose qui ne l'a pas été, on va nous traiter de rétrogrades ou de personnes conservateurs. John Sawyer's has a chip shot on this. Yeah, I just wanted to come in on this point, because I didn't mention much about the Europe's role on this. There is certainly some very interesting and important technology development taking place in Europe, although we are falling behind both the United States and China in terms of both basic research and how we exploit that at the corporate level. But I think the European Union has an important regulatory role here. I implied a reference to the general data privacy, GDPR regulation that Europe pushed through a couple of years ago, which is now a global standard. We are seeing now the work of the European Commission on the taxation of global corporates in the technology sector. And I think this will also become a global standard, even though Washington is kicking and screaming about it. There is a certain role here in terms of regulating this rather wild world where Europe can play a role. But I think in order to have that influence, we will also need to invest more in basic research and building up our corporates in order to enable the areas where Europe does have an edge and aerospace and so on is certainly one of those in the years to come. So in many ways, the biggest challenge that regulators will face over the coming generation is how we transfer the rule of law we have in the physical world into the virtual world. And I think there's an important leadership role that Europe can take in this. Kicking and screaming is the order of the day in Washington now, John. Johnny, have you had a brief, brief remark? Yes, but I agree because when we are at the U.S. and China are the first and that Europe is behind them, I don't agree because there are numerous fields where Europe is number one and what is really of interest is that we have less money, it's of use. And we have also a real capability to organize and to cooperate because when Europe works in Brussels or in other international agencies, you have 20, 25 countries working together. And in my opinion, it's a real asset of Europe. Afterwards, for instance, in space, when I see my China counterpart, he tells me, how many are you in CNES? I answer, 2,500. He loves and I ask him, how many are you in China? 110,000. But okay, we are 67 million in France and 1.6 billion in China. But in spite of that, on many fields, we are at the same position as that in China. And so we don't have to be shy because Europe is today at the front side in the research and technology. I have a series of hands in the front row. Just at one point, please. Yes, please. I mean, of course, Russia sometimes is geopolitically a difficult partner to handle for Europe. But the true competitors are indeed China and the US, of course. But you know that Europe can do something. You see, if I may, with my own company. In the 60s, nobody would have believed that I was could ever compete with Boeing and see where we are now. So if Europe wants to get its act together, it can do so. Go to Karl Kaiser in the front row. And we'll stay in the front row for the next two questions. Karl Kaiser, how about Kennedy School? I have a question for John Solis. John, toward the end, you seem to suggest there's a difference between autocratic regimes and democracies when it comes to cyber threats. Democracies, for example, their banking sector can collapse or they're great. Whereas in autocratic systems, the regime is a threat. But couldn't you also argue that democracies also have a regime problem? Some could argue that Putin put their man into the White House, destabilizing the United States. Indeed, the Western liberal order. So democracies are also threatened as regimes through cyber. Is there any difference here? I think there is a difference because there are more checks and balances in democratic systems than there are in autocratic systems. I think one of the driving concerns of President Putin is that the Russian system has totally collapsed twice in recent historical memory in 1917 and in 1991. And the reason he's so fearful of things like the colored revolutions and what happened in Ukraine in 2014 is that he fears a third collapse of the Russian system and will do everything he can to prevent it and so far quite skillfully and ruthlessly. I think in the West, we do have more checks and balances than that. And the American system and the British system in different ways are both going through a populist moment, a period of crisis. But our fundamental structures of the system are not in jeopardy. We're not about to collapse as a society. And one of the reassuring aspects, we'll talk about Trump on a panel tomorrow, one of the reassuring aspects about America's response to a character like Donald Trump in the White House is that the system, by and large, is holding up despite the strains and the cracks within it. I mean, I do think it's interesting that the most aggressive users of cyber in a state-to-state level have been countries like Russia against the former Soviet Union countries, Israel against Iran, and Iran in retaliation. And to some extent, North Korea as a way of trying to get some money, some rent-seeking out of the international system. It's striking that although China has used cyber very extensively for intellectual property theft, and of course, as a famous stealing of the Office of Personal Management Records in the United States, the using it as a weapon of war, both China and the United States and the European powers have been very reserved about how you use that because in part, because of the threat of retaliation and vulnerability, which I think, as I say, all powers face. But I think I would still say autocratic countries have that much extra vulnerability because they don't have any checks and balances. They basically don't have broad systems of consent. So the stakes are even higher for autocracies than they are for democracies. John, in this phase, the system is not only standing up in Washington, it is fighting back, but more about that tomorrow. I saw a prime ministerial hand down here. No, all right. Yes. Daniel D'Alen, the Romanian Central Bank. Checks and balances, they are essential for democracies and we see it quite clearly. It's not only, but it was in the case of Nixon now and this case. But let me ask you, checks and balances are not sufficient if the political establishment is strange from the owner and citizen. Okay, then we get into trouble and this is a big, big issue in the liberal democracies. Now, secondly, it seems like, and you have not alluded to, but it's clearly that we are moving into a block-based global system. I shouldn't call it a system, it's not a system. And this is very unnerving. What kind of an order? Geopolitics, security concerns, clearly. The US versus China. But there are global public goods which have to be provided. It's about climate change, dealing with machines. Some of them maybe turn into very obnoxious beings. So there should be a global order. And what should be done? What should be done? At the end of the day, it may have, the United States may have to strike a deal with China. I mean, it's, however, let's say, unpalatable it may look like. I'm asking you because you... But I'm not sure this is much to do with the topic of the panel. We can talk about this in other sessions. I just make two points. First of all, the populist moment that Europe, continental Europe, Britain and America is currently going through is partly a correction of elites having become out of touch with ordinary sentiment. It's a violent correction and it's having some very unwelcome consequences, not least for my country. But nonetheless, there is a sense of ordinary citizens reasserting themselves and the conventional leaderships of the elite are having to make corrections, both in terms of wealth distribution, in terms of power, in terms of responding to the concerns of people who feel excluded from democracy and that's what we're seeing now. It's painful and some of it is very negative, but nonetheless, I think that's basically what's happening. At a global level, I entirely agree with you that we need some global commons. We need some means to develop global public goods and that was the triumph of the post-1945 world, was that under American leadership with strong European support, that we created a system which did deliver on that. It is now in really struggling and I think your reference to climate change is exactly right. The capacity to address climate change problems has sharply reduced because the United States and China in separate ways have both distanced themselves from the Paris goals and are going in their own direction. We will have to rebuild this and frankly, not optimistic that things are going to change in a year's time, but we will discuss that tomorrow. I have just gotten the hook from Thierry de Montbriand meeting we're out of time and I dare not risk his wrath, so we will wind up here with thanks to you, a very well-informed and timely audience. Thanks so much and to the panel.