 Now it's my pleasure to introduce someone who clearly has mastered technology enough to be everywhere at the same time. That's Susan Lieto, 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 reconceptualize 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 Euro Star. What does that mean for 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. It 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. 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 going to 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 thoughts. 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 U.S. presidential election of somewhere in the mid-50% turnout, no matter what we do with technology, 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 system at 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.