 Amanda from South Africa, the questions I have are pertaining to some of the developments each of you have made in terms of your research. What is it shifting in terms of policy specifically and the impact on the community that it's having on? Because it's great to hear what is emerging from those that are, I wouldn't say slightly older than me, but from those that are considered young leaders, what exactly are your developments in your research? What policy is it shifting and what's the impact of that shift and what is your projectory and your sustainability in changing that policy? Thank you. Suggest we take a few questions and then you decide on which one you want to go. Yes? My name, pardon me, my name is James Stewart. I currently work for the Government of Canada. We have a room here full of industry leaders, government leaders, and I just ask the panel, if you think about your current situation and your desire for growth and how you look to drive the good work that you're doing, what's the one thing specifically? One thing that you would put in the ear of the leaders here who manage and drive the behemoths of the world, that when they run into small organizations or they run into startups or run into organizations like your own, what's that one thing you want them to remember, whether it's to forget about risk aversion or something else, be very interested in that. Thank you. Thank you. Yes? Hi. I'm Manu. I'm an engineer from India. I have a question for Aurelio. So when we speak of cyber security in the EU, now I have a feeling that unless we resolve some of the larger geopolitical issues, we will never have that because it's an escalating war just being played out in different ambits. So I am just curious about your take on that because it's not only a question of defending ourselves using the tools of technology, but to break the will of the opponent. So I'm maybe referring to Russia and what's been happening off late, but yeah, so I'm just wondering if there needs to be a more comprehensive approach when we speak of security, cyber security in concrete. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Another question? No. Not now. I suggest we'll take cyber security at the end, it's more specialized, but views from the panel shift in policies and impact on communities. And I think communities, it's really one of the foundation of this new economy. We create a lot of communities. We grow people through communities. There is less hierarchy. So what are your take, so who wants to give it a first go? Nathaniel? Thank you very much for the question. So in terms of shifting policies, the one that we see most often is around data and how data has to be handled. We've seen a big change with the EU legislation around data. So where there are policies, they tend to be around data and large around personal identifiable information. What's challenging for a company like mine is that every country has different legislation about how that has to be treated. We're working across four continents, including in South Africa, where we're launching in eight weeks. So it makes it very complicated when we're working at the scale that we're are, so we'd love for there to be a global body that takes that on and really makes it easier for small companies. And then to the question around what would I love to put in the ear of the people who I have the privilege of sitting in front of today. If there's one thing that I underestimated in starting this process, it's the power of partnerships between large organizations and small organizations. We've built really effective partnerships with banks. And they obviously bring a lot to the table that we absolutely could not bring to the table scale operation capacity, risk management, huge, huge customer base. But we're also able to offer something that's difficult for banks to do at a large scale, which is to innovate. And with our bank customers, we are very close with them. We are in offices between them, each other. And it's been a really cost effective way for them to bring in innovation responsibly. And I think that that's going to be a model that's effective across all kinds of different industries, including government, as we go forward. Because when you're a very large organization, it's just hard to keep up with technology. Thank you. Another view is the question. Go ahead. So I really like the question of this one thing to ask. And it's going to be an obvious one. People say a lot that entrepreneurship is about risk taking. I disagree. I'm coming from a scientific background. I think it's just about experiment. So my advice is really don't be afraid to experiment. But in everything, like in your business, in your daily life, it can be starting a small project. You think it's stupid. I'm going to never work. It can be downloading zombie run when you leave this place. So really don't be afraid to experiment. And if it doesn't work, just kill it. But kill it fast. That's the answer. One point on this question as well. My job when I see CEOs of retailers, big companies, I do two things. The first thing that I do is I start by showing their own numbers. And the guy is like, oh, how do you know my numbers? And I explain it to them. And then I tell them that I've got the competitor's data as well. And this is how we do business. The second thing I tell him is that when I was a kid, not a kid, but when I was in 2003, I was dreaming of being at Lehman Brother. I was using taxes. I was buying my PS4 at the local store. I was on Facebook. And every kid was on Facebook. Now, each of these things have just changed in a matter of 10 years. And some of them have even changed in a matter of four years. And most of the CEOs with which we discuss all the discussion and with the probability of your business not being uberized or totally transformed is absolutely zero, unless if you uberize yourself. And I've got just one example. One company uberized in a way itself, which is Indigo. I know you guys are familiar with Indigo. Indigo is the leader in parking in the world. It's the former Vinci. And those guys have been super courageous because they have decided to create a small startup called OpenGo. And OpenGo is the uber of parking lot. So basically, you choose a parking space. In a minute, you have the location. You go boom. You don't need to do anything else. Your license, your number is recognized in something. And this is the only company that I know that has made such an effort to avoid being challenged by the new economy. So that would be the warning, I would say, to any CEO. Alan, a comment? First question about shifting on policies, I would say, since we've been working with the governments in the different countries, also different continents, of course, some governments, they tend to change because they see the impact, how impactful it can be, for example, in our own case, that how much money we can save for them. And on the other hand side, how impactful it can be, this project for them. So they tend basically to change the policies. And in the long run, of course, it will be sustainable. But on the other hand side, there would be the countries that they are very, very conservative. And it takes some time. And when it comes for a word that remains here, I would just say, do what you love and never give up. Because this is the only thing that can be sustainable in long run. I mean, I was reading an article that recently there was a research in US that the majority of people that they don't like what they're doing. And I mean, I'm very surprised. I usually ask this question from the people that, do you love what you're doing? And they say, at the first sentence, yeah, we love it. And when you ask, what is your dream job, they will say something else. So this is not what you love. And the only thing that I would say that, do what you love and never give up. Because this is the only thing that can bring you happiness. Thank you. A bit to react on the first question on policy shifting. I see a tendency to go from national policies to European policies, at least in this field. We see some countries used to be very protective on these issues, and I'm thinking, of course, of France, other to be more open. But there is this feeling that the fragmentation of national markets is in itself harmful for the industry, that we have an incentive to gain an edge in standardization, and at the same time to have a collective response to the personal data, et cetera, issues. On Manus's question on cybersecurity, I will leave the floor to Patrick. I think it's different to your question on cybersecurity because you have to start with the threat, as I mentioned briefly. And the threat is, first, it's permanent. It comes from a very different horizon. Is it national, military or non-military? You have more or less organized crime as a threat. You have what I call the libertarian hackers, the anonymous type, and you have the sheer incompetence of everybody included that do mistakes that generate cybersecurity vulnerabilities. So in this context, your response is diverse today. And as I answered the question yesterday, there is an arms race on the technology, but then you have to know what is it that you want to defend. There will be never, as in any other similar situation before cyber warfare, a no risk situation. So what it creates is that the corporate world is involved into it. It's not only, we call it in military terms, asymmetric warfare. Cyber security is a typical example of an asymmetric type of warfare where a small entity can challenge a much larger organization and create disproportionate impact. And cooperation are involved into this cybersecurity question, like it or not. Because we are the vehicle, we are the means through our networks, through the technology that we have deployed, and we are part of this, but from different angles. So there is no structured answer so far. There is a lot of coordination between the different institutions. And it's new for the corporate world to be involved in such activities as it was not the case before. But yes, we will have to organize a response, first an industry response when it comes to the enterprise world, and then connect with the different agencies. So that's for cybersecurity. If there are not other questions, yes? Hello, thank you very much for your speeches. So I'm Hermine Durand from France. I have a question for Alan. I would like to know how it works, because I'm quite curious to know how you bring the data together and why it hadn't been done before. And can you apply your method to other diseases? What are your next projects? Thank you. Thank you. So Alan, it's direct, so go ahead. Should I answer directly? Yes, yes. OK. Basically, the core of the technology is like we have developed the software. And the software, we have different categories of parameters. One is the demographic data, which is like about how old you are, are you male or female, are you smoking, this type of parameters. The other category will be electrocardiogram or ECG. Some parameters will be extracted from the ECG that will input into that category. And the other category will be a normal blood test. So the user of the system will be the healthcare professionals, like the doctors or cardiologists or nurses. And so they use it at the primary care that they can understand, for example, if there is a need to do the angiography operation or no. Because today, angiography is the gold standard when they want to see and make sure if, for example, one of the main arteries of the heart is blood or no. And the point is that, why it hadn't been done before, actually, the point is about that this is the emergence of artificial intelligence. I mean, the data is there. It's the way that we handle this data. And today, when we go to doctor, they basically, they use the man's intelligence. They want to correlate this data in their brain. But a human's brain is limited. I mean, the strongest brain can maybe correlate 10 to 20 different parameters. But we look at about 50 different parameters. So in this direction, we can come up with the more accurate results. Thank you. Another question? Yeah. And about the other diseases, sorry. Well, basically, we have built a foundation that can be used for the complex diseases. But the main focus at the moment is heart disease, because heart disease is the number one cause of this all around the world. And about 17.5 million people die every year in the world just because of heart disease. Of course, in the long run, we have the plan that we extend it to other complex diseases, like cancer. Hi, my name is Estelle Yusuf. I'm a journalist. I wanted to ask the panel their thoughts on what I see as attention regarding this new digital era, as in the data that you're talking about is a commodity for business, whereas for government, it's statistics. IE, for some, it's money to be made. For others, it's the obligation to protect privacy and anonymity. And I don't know the term in English, but in French, that would be the right to be forgotten. As in when I'm listening to the health applications that you're talking about, as a cancer survivor, I would be very scared that those data would be used by my insurers as in paying a premium. So I would think that that's one tension. But what our colleague from the European Union mentioned, the tax evasion, in a way, business corporations are expecting, and that leads to what you mentioned about cybersecurity, are expecting governments to step in in terms of ensuring security, but are they paying the price of the accountability that Edouard mentioned? Corporations are trying to pay less and less taxes, and being less and less accountable for a field where they almost have total monopoly. So I would have to have the thoughts of the panel on that. OK, let's go over a few questions on this. First, I guess I would first respond to your question by a question, which is that, I mean, Montaigne used to say that sciences sont consciences, n'est qu'une de l'âme, science without maybe ethics. Pardon? Rabelé? Pardon. OK, go ahead. A two-seigneur, two-seigneur. Anyway, so there is a trade-off between science and ethics, or science without ethics in modern terms doesn't go very far. But what we can see in a globalized world is that you can choose to have lower standards in terms of conscience or ethics to gain an edge on the economy and competitiveness. We see that on personal data. I mean, it's clear that if you give no protection to personal data, it will be much easier to create your business on that and to use the data. On the contrary, if you put up two strong regulations, it is certain that the economic opportunities will be more difficult. And this is increased by the fact that as you fight, you don't fight to be better, but you fight to be the best, because it's a platform economy. So in a way, in such or such sector, you need to be first. And that's why my question in return is more that my interrogation is, I mean, I think that maybe in Europe we can reach an agreement on what is the right level of personal data protection. You mentioned the right to be forgotten. I mean, it is or will be in EU legislation. And so there will be a new standard, but there will also be standards in other parts of the world. And this will interact with competitiveness. And my preoccupation is, where should we discuss this? Is there a place, a way to discuss this, given the pace of change? I would like to add two things on that point, because that's basically the heart of my business, saying what is personal and what is anonymized data. The first thing that I want to do is to make a compliment to the public forces, I mean, no, the public, which is previously all regulations about private data only showed one thing, which is the guy who wrote the laws didn't know much about what he was writing about, or at least it was not aligned with the state of technology and the reality of what data was. So for the first time GDPR, which is the regulation that has to be enforced by May 2018, it's the first regulation of its kind, which is basically matching in terms of expertise and what we live on a daily basis in our businesses. And the correlation of having more expertise from the lawmakers is that it creates opportunities for companies like Fox Intelligence, for example, because in GDPR, anonymized data for the first time has been properly described. And we sell anonymized data. So my take on that is by integrating private sector in the debate, by elevating the level of expertise from the public sector, then we can achieve the kind of things that has been achieved with GDPR. I also spend a lot of time thinking about PII versus non-PII, personally identifiable information versus generic information. And a large part of what makes my business defensible is that we have a large amount of non-personally identifiable information that data that I'm largely interested in is how you ask your bank, what's my balance? Do I have money? Can I afford this coffee? That's the data that we feed into our model. So from a business standpoint, we're interested in making sure that we can maintain that data and our defensibility. Where it gets interesting is the personally identifiable information. And you've got an example where you would be hesitant to have your health care information available. I have an example where I actually really wanted my health care information to be available. I lived in multiple countries. I kept moving, and every time I moved, they refused to release my health records. So now I don't know what my past is, so I've been negatively impacted by that. And I think that this fundamental tension is going to work itself out because one of the promises of AI is a level of personalization that we've never seen before. So where consumers can drive value from their data from different businesses, they're going to want it to be available. And I think that the logical consequence of that is that increasingly policies are going to have to find ways to give each individual user the autonomy to say where and how they want their data used. How that's actually managed and handled will definitely take time. It will also take a lot of technology to manage that. But we're going to see a personalization in terms of people getting to choose in a very granular way who and where their data can be used. I would like to add one point from the enterprise perspective. In fact, it's our entire society that was mechanical process-centric. I mean, processes is something from the 50s, 60s, it's been developed. And our society was organized around processes. With what you just heard, we completely shift towards a knowledge data-centric type of organization. So it rocks the entire enterprise. You are constantly, it's a big challenge, but it's a challenge for society as well, you are constantly rebuilding the way you operate. And one of the big challenges at large corporation I have today is how do you keep it together? Because the tensions are coming from everywhere. If I was discussing with the chairman of the large insurance company in the US and he was explaining to me, looking at this value change, just to illustrate my point, on the back in the refinancing, I'm attacked by the FinTech, not the kind of Natali, but other type of FinTech. On the front, I'm attacked by the type of Google. In the middle, in risk management, there are all the algorithm developers that are playing with this. I have already subcontracting my underwriting activities. So what am I left? What makes the value? And we speak of a complete activity that is a significant activity in our world that is insurance. And that's the reality. And then the discussion we had is, OK, how can we maintain, because the value is maintaining this value chain together? And then he said, OK, how can you interoperate with me, which for us is a complete new world of engaging with our clients? And so we are all here discovering, in terms of policy and responsibility, because you're right, it's an important point. There is, beyond GDPR, there is another European directive called NIS, Network and Information Systems, that come into law in May, that defines the responsibilities, what, notably between operators, service providers, enterprise, who is in charge of maintaining what. And if you fail, it's like for GDPR, the fine is up to 4% of your revenue, which is a big amount of money for anybody, whatever your size is. So this is a first attempt. But the fundamentally, we all have to rethink the way we operate. And so we don't have all the answers today. Other questions? If not, I thank you very much. So, Jomai, if I just add one thing that I, or if you... No, go ahead, conclude. Okay, if you, getting back to your question, James, one thing that makes, for me, the difference of most of the companies that I've seen as potential clients and the startups that I see, is that there is a hidden principle in every startup that I don't see in every big company. And this hidden principle is, you always hire people that are better than yourself. Well, at least one thing that you've done, whereas he has more talent than yourself. And the opposite is what you see in many companies. You take somebody who's not gonna be challenging you, who sometimes, let's say, in a political party, would be able to do things that you don't want to do. And the consequences of that, after 20, 30 years, is you end up with a GOP in the U.S., the Republican Party, which is, basically, if you always hire somebody who's just a little bit talented than yourself, then you just take one generation, boom, you're gone. And the difference with startups, since we don't have that much money to hire people, we always make the effort to choose somebody who has something to bring to the company. And that would be what I'd like to leave in the years of a CEO today. Thank you. So thank you for your participation, and I hope we couldn't bring a new light. Thank you very much.