>> Narrator: Live from London, England. It's theCUBE. Covering AWS Summit London 2019. Brought to you by Amazon Web Services. >> Hello and welcome to the AWS Summit here at the XL Center in London. I'm Susannah Streeter and Dave Vellante is my co-host on The CUBE today. So much to talk about. It is immense this Summit. Thousands upon thousands of attendees talking about everything to do with the Cloud, of course. AI machine learning, but privacy keeps coming up again and again. And I'm please to say that Bill Mew is here. He's a privacy campaigner and tech consultant and is now CEO of crisisteam.co.uk. Now Bill, we have talked a lot really about the growth of AWS and also the start-ups using the public Cloud. It's interesting that that growth is intensified even though the GDPR regulations came into force and right now lobbyists are really hard at work, 6aren't they? Particularly in the United States trying to limit the impact of coming regulations. Do you think that they'll be successful? >> Well, I think there was a big argument when we first looked at the introduction of regulation around privacy and sort of ethical issues. But it would be a big restraint on innovation and I think what we're seeing here at this AWS Summit is the fact that innovation is well, and it's alive, and it's really healthy and there's a great deal happening. We just need to be careful with what we do with people's data and there's a very good reason for this. It really matters to people. You, me, people in the street, consumers. Number one issue, now, for most people is security and privacy and how their data is handled. It's interesting that only six months, eight months ago, if you surveyed the same group of people, they might have said diversity or sustainability. Now, because of a number of the horror stories around data breaches, the number one issue out there is now how their data is handled. And therefore, companies need to take it very seriously. And obviously AWS has got an enormous infrastructure and it's claiming that it's GDPR compliant in the way it handles it's own data. But there are a lot of people that host on its platform and they're sometimes vulnerable. So, what I'm doing is I'm helping to influence where some of the regulation is going to try and head things off, to ensure we have the right balance between meaningful protections because that needs to be in place, but ensuring that meaningful protections don't hinder innovation or economic and social value. But at the same time, I also work, I was apart of the crisis team with some of the top lawyers in Cyber Law and a whole bunch of crisis management experts, or ex UN or whoever, and we help step in when things go wrong for companies. Not only helping them come together with a legally defensible position, helping them communicate it effectively, and actually across our social media campaign and our reach and some of the other channels like this that we use, we help to counter some of the hysteria and misinformation that is often inevitable in that type of situation. So, there's a whole spectrum there and an enormous scope for debate. >> So you're talking there about fake news in particular, are you? >> Well, I think that when a story breaks there can be a lot of misinformation about exactly what happened. Things can get a little bit out of hand and hysteria can take off. You can talk about alternative facts, you can talk about hysteria, you can talk about fake news. What we try and do is not only help companies formulate what is likely to be the most realistic defensible position they have, but also to make sure that they're countering some of the really terrible hysteria that can occur at a time when typically their own credibility in the market is an all time low. And maybe there are, if you've got some credible privacy campaigners, some real thought leaders in the market who can step in and say, "Hold on guys, look, there's a little bit of reality we need to touch on here. This isn't quite what happened, this may have happened, and this is what they're doing to try to address it". Then maybe we can counter some of that hysteria. We can help people who might be unduly concerned, and also we can help protect some brands out there that are sometimes facing a lot of reputational harm. >> So Scott McNealy famously said one day that, he was the former CEO of Sun Microsystems, a very successful company that was sold to Oracle, but he said, "There is no privacy in the internet, get over it". And that was before social media took off. Social media obviously has affected this discussion. But, for years, and still, people put stuff on the social channels that is absurdly private. Yet, it's open for the public. So- >> Yeah, but I think there was a level of naivety once upon a time. If we were to ask a number of questions a while ago about privacy, I think people would not be really too concerned, but they've seen some of the breeches like the Equifax breech, where there was some really very sensitive information made available. Sometimes. that led to very real concerns around people. But also, we're looking at new technologies that are going to come along. We've got AI on the horizon, we've got facial recognition. These kind of technologies are actually going to dominate our lives in the future. And we're already seeing in countries like China, where they're using facial recognition to score people, a bit like you have a credit score, you have a citizenship score, a how good a citizen you are, whether you jaywalk, whether you do all sorts of other different things. And your access to credit, your access to travel opportunities, your access to a whole load of services is based on your score. I think there will be a lot of people in the possibly democratic western societies who might see that as a little bit Big Brother. >> Even though you are still seeing some states and cities already bringing in regulations to limit some of the advances we see here. >> Yeah, it's interesting, I think in Washington state in the U.S., there have been a number of different proposals put forward in terms of how they introduce the sort of privacy regulations we've already seen California and elsewhere. And some of the proposals there would be nigh on sort of a banning facial recognition entirely because the barometric constraints were really quite severe. And I think, part of what I've been doing, I work with a lot of privacy campaigners, but I also work with other corporates to see how we can strike the right balance. We want meaningful protections, absolutely, because there's some really sensitive data out there. And the way it's used can affect our lives. At the same time, we don't want to stifle innovation, the type of innovation we're seeing here at the AWS Summit. We want maximize the economic and social value. And that's a really delicate balance to strike. >> Susannah: It's a tight rope, isn't it? >> It sounds good, but so, I think of the cloud, how it's enabled small businesses to have access to IT infrastructure that's the same quality as large companies. In a way, doesn't this stack the deck for large companies who can actually afford the compliance officers and all the infrastructure necessary in the software and the people to actually comply with these new regulations. >> I think there is some truth in that, because there is absolutely an overhead, but I don't think we need to get away from the fact that data is really important and it needs to be protected. I don't think we're just looking at privacy here, we're also looking at data protection and I don't think you should underestimate the vulnerability that we now see. I mean, we are more of an inter connected society than we have ever been. The number of attacks that are on the horizon are growing exponentially. We are also seeing the fact that the number of opportunities, the threat landscape, is increasing. We've got massive numbers of IOT devices and other things. It's going to be very, very difficult. It's going to be a full time challenge. Indeed it's a sort of AI arms race as either side use AI to discover either vulnerabilities to introduce attacks, or vulnerabilities in order to introduce patches. >> We hear a lot about just how valuable our data is. And we were even discussing at one point that it's more valuable than oil for many companies. Do you think that consumers have really woken up to the fact, just how valuable their data is? And could you foresee a time where by actually the consumers say, "You want my data, you've really got to pay me for it"? >> I think there have been some proposals along that front in terms of how we separate private data and give people control over it. The right to be forgotten was a step in that direction. But, if we can have some sort of infrastructure that does allow people separate their own private data and allow access to it on a permissions basis, then that could provide a future internet. There's been a lot of discussion along that front from Tim Berners-Lee and a number of other really top thinkers in that particular arena. But the value of that data possibly was overlooked in the past. Plus also the vulnerability as well, and therefore I think people are waking up to it now. That's why they care so much more about it now then they ever have in the past. >> Well there's certainly a lot of talk in the Blockchain and crypto world about using that technology to allow the users to own their own data, to control their own data. I mean take Facebook for example, there's a built in incentive for them to appropriate our data, so they can sell ads to us. But, what if, as the theory goes, the user could control it, the user could monetize his or her own data. So there is some discussion going on there, there is some technology development going on there at the low level protocol. What do you think about that? >> I certainly think that technology will provide the answer. Exactly how we do a sort of new version of the internet that allows that sort of control, is still open to discussion and there are a lot of opinions both on, on either side here. Interestingly enough, Blockchain has been put forward as a possible solution, but there's a slight irony in the fact that Blockchain's immutability's actually at odds with GDPR's right to be forgotten. So, the two are actually mutually incompatible. So there's some real difficult issues for us to address here. >> So technology got us into this problem, it can potentially help us get out of this problem, but maybe not is what I'm hearing. >> It's not entirely straight forward, and actually if we are going to be moving in a direction where we give users more control over their data, it's actually gonna have to be an internationally adopted standard. At the moment, GDPR has come forward as a standard here in Europe, but it is set sort of the golden benchmark against which other regulations are now going to be measured. >> Susannah: And are you seeing signs of that? Do you expect the U.S. to adopt a model which is very much based on the one Europe has. >> It may not be exactly GDPR like, but there will be things in common. I think many of the organizations world wide that really care about their user's data, and I told you earlier about the attitudinal surveys that have been out there. Companies are very wise if they wake up to this and actually take proactive steps to change the culture in their organization, to have a digital ethics culture. It means not only are they going to care for data more often, more carefully, they're going to be less prone to the type of inadvertent leaks, as well as a sort of hacks. But at the same time, a culture of that nature helps them to deal with a situation if it even does occur. It's actually having the right culture. And those companies that have a truly digital ethics oriented culture have not only adopted GDPR in Europe, they've chosen to adopt it globally. >> I think there's a sentiment in the U.S., that look, we're doing this for European consumers, we might as well adopt the same standards globally. >> Bill: Yeah. >> We've got the processes in place, they seem to be working for Europe, why not use them? It's just more convenient, it's going to be lower cost to do that, so it just makes sense. >> That's why GDPR has emerged as a global benchmark. And many of the other countries, in India and America and elsewhere are measuring their potential regulations against GDPR. >> I've heard it criticized on this show as a socialist agenda, but it seems to having quite a bit of momentum, and a lot of sensible parts of GDPR. >> Well it, I'm not sure we could call it socialist or whatever. >> Dave: Not my words, (laughter) I'm just quoting somebody. >> What I think we've seen is a change in the balance, where actually previously, people's right to privacy wasn't recognized at all. And we had a sort of the tech revolution where people didn't really care. Facebook were talking all about a sharing culture and that was their orientation. We've seen the tech backlash where Facebook and others have all been punished and there's been a sort of sudden switch or pivot towards privacy. What we need to do is look beyond those because we need to have a level playing field. We need to have an equilibrium where we're absolutely balancing the right protections, meaningful protections, with absolutely maximizing the sort of innovation you see here and the economic and social value that's going to underpin our lives. >> Self governance is not likely to work, let's face it. >> I think we've seen, and Facebook is an example, we'll be oft quoted in this respect, that self regulation doesn't work necessarily in this way because it's just too tempting to use data in the way that you see fit. Unwinding some of the mistakes they've made in the past is not going to be easy for them, but we'll see how well they keep to the new promise of their pivot to privacy. >> Dave: I think it'll define their legacy, personally. >> Yeah. >> Well, Bill it's been fascinating having you on here, because you've really been at the forefront of all of these changes, so it's great to hear your thoughts. So, thank you very much. Bill Mew, CEO of crisisteam.co.uk. And you've been watching theCUBE at the AWS Summit in London. (tech music)

(upbeat orchestral music) >> Hello and welcome to this special Cube Conversation. I'm John Furrier, host of the Cube, here in our Palo Alto studios. We're going to across the pond, across the United States, then the pond to Bill Mew, who is the founder of MEW ERA consulting. We're going to talk privacy. We're going to talk about, you know, the challenges with cloud, cloud scale, and also privacy. With the recent report Facebook behaving like digital gangsters, as the report from The Parliament came out. The huge focus on this big-tech data problem around privacy and user rights. So, Bill, welcome, good to see you. Thanks for coming on camera. I know you're in London area, so you're in the UK, so, great to see you. >> Well, it's really great to join you, and I'm glad the technology's allowing us to chat from this great distance. >> Well, we love to bring the conversations, which are very robust on Twitter, obviously, at @furrier, your @billmew. And all our friends Sarbjeet, Tim Crawford, Stu Minimin. The whole set of Cloud influencers, has been really talking a lot, lately, around digital transformation. You know, it's the classic, you know, cliché, oh digital transformation, blah-blah-blah-blah. It's really about Cloud. It's about Cloud scale, but data. But now, as people start to realize, the scale and some of these immediate benefits of DevOps and agile development. In comes the privacy conversation. In comes the, where's the data? Moving data around is expensive. Managing data and privacy is hugely expensive, and there are consequences. And one of the most obvious news stories, just from the past, you know, 24, 48 hours, is The Parliament report that says Facebook has been acting like digital gangsters. Now this puts it on the main stage. Unpack this for us. >> Well, I come from a Cloud background, and I'm not a sort of rabid privacy campaigner, by any stretch of the imagination. I've been passionate supporter of Cloud and worked with UKCloud, who've been almost unique, being a company that took on Amazon, Google, and Microsoft, in the cloud market. And beat them all at their own game. Here, in the UK, we have a procurement framework that the government hosts called, G-Cloud for public sector technology, and UKCloud captured something like 30, 35% of the market with Amazon way down on 12%. So, it was almost a unique instance. I can't think of a single other market anywhere in the world, where these guys are being beaten at their own game. Sort of in the public cloud market, with a very specific niche. And a niche that the cloud focused on, was differentiating themselves around data sovereignty, higher levels of assurance and security, and making sure that the really sensitive government data, be it your tax records, or possibly your criminal record, if you have one, or medical records, or whatever. All this data is kept safe, and it's really, it's been really interesting to see the news recently, and some of the hysteria around privacy. I've seen, as all of us have, the tech revolution of the cloud, and how all this has come to fruition and enabled so much. And now we are seeing the tech backlash, and I think that's at it's full force at the moment. >> One of the trends that we're seeing, and I want to get your thoughts on this, is that, you know, on the one extreme, is users own their own data and you got to see things, like Blockchain, and some interesting progressive solutions around the supply chain of users owning their own data. And then, just the natural trend of Edge Computing, where the data is closest to the, whether it's the people or the devices, you call it the Internet of Things or Edge Computing. It's now becoming part of cloud, and with the global distributed nature of how the cloud is built, the emphasis on regions. So, you see, you know, certain every country has, might have their own characteristics. How is this changing the digital transformation equation? Because, you know, on one hand, you see people saying, look at, you know, you picked the right cloud for the right job. And then the other one saying, no, it should be all vendor procurement decision, not so much a cloud decision. So, there's kind of like two camps going on here. One's saying, let procurement drive the decision. And the other one saying, let the apps or the workloads drive the architecture and cloud decision. Your thoughts on this kind of mega trend of data at the edge, ownership of data, cloud selection. It's kind of a nightmare, kind of confusing. Your thoughts. >> I think, I think we're definitely seeing an acceptance that we're in a multicloud world. I think there are hardly any companies out there that don't have an element of cloud in a number of different places and that. You may have dictated a strategic alignment about one particular cloud vendor, but you're bound to have some legacy stuff, as well. You may well have some SaaS applications. You may have Salesforce or any other things. And, therefore, by almost by default, almost every organization is in some form of a multi-cloud environment, anyway. And they're all ready to accept that as a reality. And as what we've seen is a cloud migration, and people taking various different workloads to the cloud. People have naturally started with the easy stuff. The low-hanging fruit. So, typically, you're taking virtualized workloads to easy the environments like a VMware Cloud or something like that. You're taking new, the sort of Greenfield developments into sort of cloud native environments. And those are the sort of places, where you're really breaking ground with all of this, and this is going to be leaving behind certain legacy applications, which is the sort of, the really difficult stuff that you'll leave till later. And a lot of people have already cracked, much of the easy stuff, the low-hanging fruit, and they're now having to face up to the more difficult stuff. But, I think one of the things you would need to be worried about, here, is that it's not just about a focus on applications and workloads. One of the things you find is that typically you may have a few new applications that you're developing. You may sort of have the odd so change, from time to time. But, typically, the number of applications you use, and the nature of those applications, doesn't actually change enormously. What does change, is the data volume. So, whilst, people are overly focused on, well, which applications are we going to be moving and in which order. And not enough companies are actually thinking really seriously about, well what are we going to do with the data? People have budgets that are either stationary or possibly in decline, and they have data volumes that are going through the roof. And the moment we have Edge, and the moment we have 5G, this is going to come home, to really haunt them. And you'd actually need to have a really sensible data strategy to get ahead of this problem, otherwise, you're going to be facing big ingress and egress charges, because getting data in and out of the cloud isn't cheap. And also, you're going to have integration problems. But on top of that, you have the privacy issue, because a large chunk of that data is going to be sort of personally identified, viable data. It's going to be the type of data covered by GDPR and possibly new regulations, or whatever is coming up next in the US. A lot of the data won't be covered this, because it will be data that isn't privacy sensitive. But, if you don't have a really sensible data strategy, first of all, you're not going to be able to deal with the massive growing volumes of data, which are just going to get worse with 5G and Edge, but, also, you're face real problems with privacy, if suddenly people say, I want this removed, or I want that taken down, or something like that. And you go, whoa, where the heck is it? How do I do that? >> Yeah, where's it stored? On what servers is it on? So, Bill, I got to get your thoughts on this. You mentioned migration tool. In the news today, Google acquired cloud migration platform, Alooma, which has only raise 15 million in funding, shows that Google is trying to catch up. Amazon pelts highly their migration tool for moving off Oracle. So, you're seeing migration is a big part of it. So, I want to get your thoughts on the cloud players. You got Google, nipping at the heels of Azure. Azure nipping at the heels of AWS. And, you got IBM and Oracle kind of in the back falling behind. I wanted to get your thoughts on the top three, and then IBM and Oracle. Do they have a shot? And your thoughts about IBM Think was just last week. Lot of conversations around IBM and the cloud with their, with their cloud private solution. Your thoughts. Amazon, Azure? >> Okay. >> Google, and then, >> I think >> IBM and Oracle. >> I'm going to take this in two different ways. First of all I'm going to say, well, here's what we're seeing in a general market level. And, secondly, I'm going to say, well, what have I seen on the ground? On the ground, maybe I'll start with that. I worked in the UK public sector and we've been out there competing and winning a lot of business, and doing really very well. One of the things that we've seen is that having established a lead in this market at a point we're the people everyone are gunning for, which is strange to be ahead of the big hyperscalers in this market. We've found that Amazon, and certainly Azure, are all over our accounts. We almost never see a competition or any sort of competitive bids from companies like Oracle or IBM. They're just not in the market. We don't see them at all. And, certainly for IBM, in the UK, the finance sector and the public sector are meant to be the main markets they're focused on, and we're not seeing them. We just got to worry about how credible they are in those markets. Now if you look at sort of a global scale. >> Hold on, just to interrupt. We lost you for a quick second. Got a little glitch in the screen on the connectivity. But, did you mention Oracle, I mean, Google? What's Google like out there on the ground, anything? >> Okay. From a global perspective, there's obviously AWS, who are way ahead. You've got Azure, who are a very credible second player, and they got a lot of strength. I mean, they got a foot both in the public cloud, but also in the hybrid cloud. I think, you shouldn't overlook the strength of the Geostack offering. And, also, they've got an enormously strong partner ecosystem, with CSPs and MSPs. There they're going to take a lot of their technology forward. So, I think, they're going to be credible across the space. Google are in an interesting position. I think they're investing heavily. They have deep pockets. They are some distance behind. I'm not seeing them in any competitive bids that we're entering into. So, you got to worry about how much traction they're really getting in the market, but they've certainly got very deep pockets, and you shouldn't dismiss them. The likes of Alibaba, who, you know, they may not be present in this market at the moment, but, again, you can't dismiss them. The companies that you possibly might dismiss as serious cloud players, are maybe Oracle, and IBM, 'cause we're not seeing them in any of the shortlists that we're up against. We're not seeing them in the market. We're not seeing them put in the level of investment, the billions of infrastructure investment that you need to have to keep up in this market. And I actually think IBM are in a very strong position. When I said, earlier, we've moved a lot of low-hanging fruit, and then we're now getting onto difficult stuff. IBM have the services business to help the big companies with the complex migrations and the really challenging stuff. But I think that's where IBM is going to play, and I think they have a very strong role to play there. I just don't seem them as a cloud player. And, maybe we should just be describing them as a services company. >> I want to get your thoughts on, this might be a little bit tangent to the cloud, but it's kind of related, with multi-cloud on the horizon, or actually here, everyone has a lot of different clouds, when you put the connective tissue together for the multi-cloud, you can't help but ignore Cisco and VMware. Both have presence in enterprises. Thoughts around, you know, the network layer, get NSX on VMware, and you got, also, Cisco moving up the stack with their DevNet program, developer program. We're seeing a lot of action going on around the software-defined data center, as it relates to on-premise and multi-cloud. Your thoughts on that market? Can you share any insights there? >> Yeah, I mean, I've come from a company that was hosting possibly the largest VMware Cloud in Europe, and we're very familiar with some of these technologies, and I think VMware has had a very good position in the market. I'm not sure that they are going to be able to sustain that. We're seeing a lot of people who saw the ability to move virtualized workloads to, sort of VMware Cloud environment as a compelling proposition, but that's a one-off shift. And the moment they have the opportunity to go cloud native, they're going to take it off. And I don't see Vm are really holding the control point now, but that you certainly got VMware on all the different platforms, and it's being controlled by the likes of AWS and others, who can sort of assist their customers to get on to whichever environment within their estate that they want. I think Cisco are coming from an interesting position. Where they got some really great security portfolio, and, in fact, we've used a lot of their hardware, but I don't see them actually, again, having a particular control point in the market. >> Talk about, before we get close out here, I want to get your thoughts on what's going on on Twitter. Obviously, you're highly engaging, you're an influencer on Twitter, subject matter expert, great on camera, obviously, here at the Cube remote. What's the sentiment going on around digital transformation? Sarbjeet and the crowd, all talking, Stu Miniman and I, and Dave Vellante and the Cube team, and the whole community has really been chirppin', obviously 'cause IBM Think was last week, around the context of cloud on-premise, digital transformation. What's the general sentiment in the social media channels, that you're hearing. What's the top story? What's the most important story that's being discussed? >> You can't, you can't get away from the whole privacy debacle. I mean, we have seen the tech revolution. We're now seeing the, sort of, tech backlash, where certain companies, who have made big mistakes and many, many mistakes, I mean, Facebook, you can't avoid mentioning them. And, there are others, but Facebook are front and center. I think they have. >> Looks like we lost you little bit there, Bill. Okay, you're back. >> Yup. >> You're back. (Bill speaking faintly) So, the final question, final question for you. So, if Facebook's the digital gangster on social networking, is there a cloud gangster? >> I'm not sure. (John and Bill laugh) I don't want to point any fingers anywhere. (John laughs) I think there are companies that are the particularly muscular in the market and have a particular market position, and you can't avoid looking at Amazon, there. But, I think that there are some, there's going to be an enormous fragmentation and one side, if we're talking typically about a hybrid environment. You're talking about a mixture of public cloud and private cloud on perimeter age and whatever. In the public cloud, it's going to be concentrated down to possibly three players. And, therefore, they're going to have enormous control. Then you look on the other side of the hybrid equation to the private legacy whatever. That's going to be massively fragmented. I mean, I believe it's like IBM, who are going to be doing some of the complex migrations for some of the big organizations, using their massive services army may have a control on some of the big instances, but there's going to be a massively long tail with all sorts of MSPs and CSPs, providing bespoke solutions and value right down the chain. >> Yeah. >> And that's where I think the channel ecosystems come into play. And those companies that are cloud players also have a strong channel ecosystem? That they're going to be the ones that come out at the end of the day. >> I think the ecosystem is right on, great point. Bill, thanks for spending the time joining us here on the Cube Conversation. I'm John Furrier, here in Palo Alto for a conversation with the influencers, experts around cloud, privacy. This is the big deal. What are you doing with all that data coming in? How's it being managed? How's the value being created? This is the digital transformation challenge. It's the Cube Conversation, in Palo Alto. Thanks for watching. (upbeat orchestral music)

(upbeat electronic music) >> Narrator: From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto and Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world, this is a CUBE conversation. >> Okay, hello everyone. I'm John Furrier with theCUBE. We're here with Meet the Analysts segment Sunday morning. We've got everyone around the world here to discuss a bit of the news around the EU killing the privacy deal, striking it down, among other topics around, you know, data privacy and global commerce. We got great guests here, Ray Wang, CEO of Constellation Research. Bill Mew, founder and CEO of Cyber Crisis Management from the Firm Crisis Team. And JD, CEO of Spearhead Management. JD, I can let you say your name because I really can't pronounce it. How do I (laughs) pronounce it, doctor? >> I wouldn't even try it unless you are Dutch, otherwise it will seriously hurt your throat. (Ray laughing) So, JD works perfect for me. >> Doctor Drooghaag. >> And Sarbjeet Johal, who's obviously an influencer, a cloud awesome native expert. Great, guys. Great to have you on, appreciate it, thanks for comin' on. And Bill, thank you for initiating this, I appreciate all your tweets. >> Happy Sunday. (Bill laughing) >> You guys have been really tweeting up a storm, I want to get everyone together, kind of as an analyst, Meet the Analyst segment. Let's go through with it. The news is the EU and U.S. Privacy Shield for data struck down by the court, that's the BBC headline. Variety of news, different perspectives, you've got an American perspective and you've got an international perspective. Bill, we'll start with you. What does this news mean? I mean, basically half the people in the world probably don't know what the Privacy Shield means, so why is this ruling so important, and why should it be discussed? >> Well, thanks to sharing between Europe and America, it's based on a two-way promise that when data goes from Europe to America, the Americans promise to respect our privacy, and when data goes form America to Europe, the Europeans promise to respect the American privacy. Unfortunately, there are big cultural differences between the two blocks. The Europeans have a massive orientation around privacy as a human right. And in the U.S., there's somewhat more of a prioritization on national security, and therefore for some time there's been a mismatch here, and it could be argued that the Americans haven't been living up to their promise because they've had various different laws, and look how much talk about FISA and the Cloud Act that actually contravene European privacy and are incompatible with the promise Americans have given. That promise, first of all, was in the form of a treaty called Safe Harbor. This went to court and was struck down. It was replaced by Privacy Shield, which was pretty much the same thing really, and that has recently been to the court as well, and that has been struck down. There now is no other means of legally sharing data between Europe and America other than what are being called standard contractual clauses. This isn't a broad treaty between two nations, these are drawn by each individual country. But also in the ruling, they said that standard contractual clauses could not be used by any companies that were subject to mass surveillance. And actually in the U.S., the FISA courts enforce a level of mass surveillance through all of the major IT firms, of all major U.S. telcos, cloud firms, or indeed, social media firms. So, this means that for all of the companies out there and their clients, business should be carrying on as usual apart from if you're one of those major U.S. IT firms, or one of their clients. >> So, why did this come about? Was there like a major incident? Why now, was it in the court, stuck in the courts? Were people bitchin' and moanin' about it? Why did this go down, what's the real issue? >> For those of us who have been following this attentively, things have been getting more and more precarious for a number of years now. We've had a situation where there are different measures being taken in the U.S., that have continued to erode the different protections that there were for Europeans. FISA is an example that I've given, and that is the sort of secret courts and secret warrants that are issued to seize data without anyone's knowledge. There's the Cloud Act, which is a sort of extrajudicial law that means that warrants can be served in America to U.S. organizations, and they have to hand over data wherever that data resides, anywhere in the world. So, data could exist on a European server, if it was under the control of an American company, they'd have to hand that over. So, whilst FISA is in direct conflict with the promises that the Americans made, things like the Cloud Act are not only in controversion with the promise they've made, there's conflicting law here, because if you're a U.S. subsidiary of a big U.S. firm, and you're based in Europe, who do you obey, the European law that says you can't hand it over because of GDPR, or the American laws that says they've got extrajudicial control, and that you've got to hand it over. So, it's made things a complete mess. And to say has this stuff, hasn't really happened? No, there's been a gradual erosion, and this has been going through the courts for a number of years. And many of us have seen it coming, and now it just hit us. >> So, if I get you right in what you're saying, it's basically all this mishmash of different laws, and there's no coherency, and consistency, is that the core issue? >> On the European side you could argue there's quite a lot of consistency, because we uphold people's privacy, in theory. But there have been incidents which we could talk about with that, but in theory, we hold your rights dear, and also the rights of Europeans, so everyone's data should be safe here from the sort of mass surveillance we're seeing. In the U.S., there's more of a direct conflict between everything, including there's been a, in his first week in the White House, Donald Trump signed an executive order saying that the Privacy Act in the U.S., which had been the main protection for people in the U.S., no longer applied to non-U.S. citizens. Which was, if you wanted try and cause a storm, and if you wanted to try and undermine the treaty, there's no better way of doing it than that. >> A lot of ways, Ray, I mean simplify this for me, because I'm a startup, I'm hustlin', or I'm a big company, I don't even know who runs the servers anymore, and I've got data stored in multiple clouds, I got in regions, and Oracle just announced more regions, you got Amazon, a gazillion regions, I could be on-premise. I mean bottom line, what is this about? I mean, and -- >> Bill's right, I mean when Max Schrems, the Austrian. Bill's right, when Max Schrems the Austrian activist actually filed his case against Facebook for where data was being stored, data residency wasn't as popular. And you know, what it means for companies that are in the cloud is that you have to make sure your data's being stored in the region, and following those specific region rules, you can't skirt those rules anymore. And I think the cloud companies know that this has been coming for some time, and that's why there's been announced in a lot of regions, a lot of areas that are actually happening, so I think that's the important part. But going back to Bill's earlier point, which is important, is America is basically the Canary Islands of privacy, right? Privacy is there, but it isn't there in a very, very explicit sense, and I think we've been skirting the rules for quite some time, because a lot of our economy depends on that data, and the marketing of the data. And so we often confuse privacy with consent, and also with value exchange, and I think that's part of the problem of what's going on here. Companies that have been building their business models on free data, free private data, free personally identifiable data information are the ones that are at risk! And I think that's what's going on here. >> It's the classic Facebook issue, you're the product, and the data is your product. Well, I want to get into what this means, 'cause my personal take away, not knowing the specifics, and just following say, cyber security for instance, one of the tenets there is that data sharing is an invaluable, important ethos in the community. Now, everyone has their own privacy, or security data, they don't want to let everyone know about their exploits but, but it's well known in the security world that sharing data with each other, different companies and countries is actually a good thing. So, the question that comes in my mind, is this really about data sharing or data privacy, or both? >> I think it's about both. And actually what the ruling is saying here is, all we're asking from the European side is please stop spying on us and please give us a level of equal protection that you give to your own citizens. Because data comes from America to Europe, whatever that data belongs to, a U.S. citizen or a European citizen, it's given equal protection. It is only if data goes in the other direction, where you have secret courts, secret warrants, seizure of data on this massive scale, and also a level of lack of equivalence that has been imposed. And we're just asking that once you've sorted out a few of those things, we'd say everything's back on the table, away we go again! >> Why don't we merge the EU with the United States? Wouldn't that solve the problem? (Bill laughing) >> We just left Europe! (laughs heartily) >> Actually I always -- >> A hostile takeover of the UK maybe, the 52nd state. (Bill laughing loudly) >> I always pick on Bill, like Bill, you got all screaming loud and clear about all these concerns, but UKs trying to get out of that economic union. It is a union at the end of the day, and I think the problem is the institutional mismatch between the EU and U.S., U.S. is old democracy, bigger country, population wise, bigger economy. Whereas Europe is several countries trying to put together, band together as one entity, and the institutions are new, like you know, they're 15 years old, right? They're maturing. I think that's where the big mismatch is and -- >> Well, Ray, I want to get your thoughts on this, Ray wrote a book, I forget what year it was, this digital disruption, basically it was digital transformation before it was actually a trend. I mean to me it's like, do you do the process first and then figure out where the value extraction is, and this may be a Silicon Valley or an American thing, but go create value, then figure out how to create process or understand regulations. So, if data and entrepreneurship is going to be a new modern era of value, why wouldn't we want to create a rule based system that's open and enabling, and not restrictive? >> So, that's a great point, right? And the innovation culture means you go do it first, and you figure out the rules later, and that's been a very American way of getting things done, and very Silicon Valley in our perspective, not everyone, but I think in general that's kind of the trend. I think the challenge here is that we are trading privacy for security, privacy for convenience, privacy for personalization, right? And on the security level, it's a very different conversation than what it is on the consumer end, you know, personalization side. On the security side I think most Americans are okay with a little bit of "spying," at least on your own side, you know, to keep the country safe. We're not okay with a China level type of spying, which we're not sure exactly what that means or what's enforceable in the courts. We look like China to the Europeans in the way we treat privacy, and I think that's the perspective we need to understand because Europeans are very explicit about how privacy is being protected. And so this really comes back to a point where we actually have to get to a consent model on privacy, as to knowing what data is being shared, you have the right to say no, and when you have the right to say no. And then if you have a value exchange on that data, then it's really like sometimes it's monetary, sometimes it's non-monetary, sometimes there's other areas around consensus where you can actually put that into place. And I think that's what's missing at this point, saying, you know, "Do we pay for your data? Do we explicitly get your consent first before we use it?" And we haven't had that in place, and I think that's where we're headed towards. And you know sometimes we actually say privacy should be a human right, it is in the UN Charter, but we haven't figured out how to enforce it or talk about it in the digital age. And so I think that's the challenge. >> Okay, people, until they lose it, they don't really understand what it means. I mean, look at Americans. I have to say that we're idiots on this front, (Bill chuckling) but you know, the thing is most people don't even understand how much value's getting sucked out of their digital exhaust. Like, our kids, TikTok and whatnot. So I mean, I get that, I think there's some, there's going to be blow back for America for sure. I just worry it's going to increase the cost of doing business, and take away from the innovation for citizen value, the people, because at the end of the day, it's for the people right? I mean, at the end of the day it's like, what's my privacy mean if I lose value? >> Even before we start talking about the value of the data and the innovation that we can do through data use, you have to understand the European perspective here. For the European there's a level of double standards and an erosion of trust. There's double standards in the fact that in California you have new privacy regulations that are slightly different to GDPR, but they're very much GDPR like. And if the boot was on the other foot, to say if we were spying on Californians and looking at their personal data, and contravening CCPA, the Californians would be up in arms! Likewise if we having promised to have a level of equality, had enacted a local rule in Europe that said that when data from America's over here, actually the privacy of Americans counts for nothing, we're only going to prioritize the privacy of Europeans. Again, the Americans would be up in arms! And therefore you can see that there are real double standards here that are a massive issue, and until those addressed, we're not going to trust the Americans. And likewise, the very fact that on a number of occasions Americans have signed up to treaties and promised to protect our data as they did with Safe Harbor, as they did with Privacy Shield, and then have blatantly, blatantly failed to do so means that actually to get back to even a level playing field, where we were, you have a great deal of trust to overcome! And the thing from the perspective of the big IT firms, they've seen this coming for a long time, as Ray was saying, and they sought to try and have a presence in Europe and other things. But the way this ruling has gone is that, I'm sorry, that isn't going to be sufficient! These big IT firms based in the U.S. that have been happy to hand over data, well some of them maybe more happy than others, but they all need to hand over data to the NSA or the CIA. They've been doing this for some time now without actually respecting this data privacy agreement that has existed between the two trading blocks. And now they've been called out, and the position now is that the U.S. is no longer trusted, and neither are any of these large American technology firms. And until the snooping stops and equality is introduced, they can now no longer, even from their European operations, they can no longer use standard contractual clauses to transfer data, which is going to be a massive restriction on their business. And if they had any sense, they'd be lobbying very, very hard right now to the Senate, to the House, to try and persuade U.S. lawmakers actually to stick to some these treaties! To stop introducing really mad laws that ride roughshod over other people's privacy, and have a certain amount of respect. >> Let's let JD weigh in, 'cause he just got in, sorry on the video, I made him back on a host 'cause he dropped off. Just, Bill, real quick, I mean I think it's like when, you know, I go to Europe there's the line for Americans, there's the line for EU. Or EU and everybody else. I mean we might be there, but ultimately this has to be solved. So, JD, I want to let you weigh in, Germany has been at the beginning forefront of privacy, and they've been hardcore, and how's this all playing out in your perspective? >> Well, the first thing that we have to understand is that in Germany, there is a very strong law for regulation. Germans panic as soon as they know regulation, so they need to understand what am I allowed to do, and what am I not allowed to do. And they expect the same from the others. For the record I'm not German, but I live in Germany for some 20 years, so I got a bit of a feeling for them. And that sense of need for regulation has spread very fast throughout the European Union, because most of the European member states of the European Union consider this, that it makes sense, and then we found that Britain had already a very good framework for privacy, so GDPR itself is very largely based on what the United Kingdom already had in place with their privacy act. Moving forward, we try to find agreement and consensus with other countries, especially the United States because that's where most of the tech providers are, only to find out, and that is where it started to go really, really bad, 2014, when the mass production by Edward Snowden came out, to find out it's not data from citizens, it's surveillance programs which include companies. I joined a purchasing conference a few weeks ago where the purchase of a large European multinational, where the purchasing director explicitly stated that usage of U.S. based tech providers for sensitive data is prohibited as a result of them finding out that they have been under surveillance. So, it's not just the citizens, there's mass -- >> There you have it, guys! We did trust you! We did have agreements there that you could have abided by, but you chose not to, you chose to abuse our trust! And you're now in a position where you are no longer trusted, and unless you can lobby your own elected representatives to actually recreate a level playing field, we're not going to continue trusting you. >> So, I think really I -- >> Well I mean that, you know, innovation has to come from somewhere, and you know, has to come from America if that's the case, you guys have to get on board, right? Is that what it -- >> Innovation without trust? >> Is that the perspective? >> I don't think it's a country thing, I mean like, it's not you or them, I think everybody -- >> I'm just bustin' Bill's chops there. >> No, but I think everybody, everybody is looking for what the privacy rules are, and that's important. And you can have that innovation with consent, and I think that's really where we're going to get to. And this is why I keep pushing that issue. I mean, privacy should be a fundamental right, and how you get paid for that privacy is interesting, or how you get compensated for that privacy if you know what the explicit value exchange is. What you're talking about here is the surveillance that's going on by companies, which shouldn't be happening, right? That shouldn't be happening at the company level. At the government level I can understand that that is happening, and I think those are treaties that the governments have to agree upon as to how much they're going to impinge on our personal privacy for the trade off for security, and I don't think they've had those discussions either. Or they decided and didn't tell any of their citizens, and I think that's probably more likely the case. >> I mean, I think what's happening here, Bill, you guys were pointing out, and Ray, you articulated there on the other side, and my kind of colorful joke aside, is that we're living a first generation modern sociology problem. I mean, this is a policy challenge that extends across multiple industries, cyber security, citizen's rights, geopolitical. I mean when would look, and even when we were doing CUBE events overseas in Europe, in North American companies we'd call it abroad, we'd just recycle the American program, and we found there's so much localization value. So, Ray, this is the digital disruption, it's the virtualization of physical for digital worlds, and it's a lot of network theory, which is computer science, a lot of sociology. This is a modern challenge, and I don't think it so much has a silver bullet, it's just that we need smart people working on this. That's my take away! >> I think we can describe the ideal endpoint being somewhere we have meaningful protection alongside the maximization of economic and social value through innovation. So, that should be what we would all agree would be the ideal endpoint. But we need both, we need meaningful protection, and we need the maximization of economic and social value through innovation! >> Can I add another axis? Another axis, security as well. >> Well, I could -- >> I put meaningful protection as becoming both security and privacy. >> Well, I'll speak for the American perspective here, and I won't speak, 'cause I'm not the President of the United States, but I will say as someone who's been from Silicon Valley and the east coast as a technical person, not a political person, our lawmakers are idiots when it comes to tech, just generally. (Ray laughing) They're not really -- (Bill laughing loudly) >> They really don't understand. They really don't understand the tech at all! >> So, the problem is -- >> I'm not claiming ours are a great deal better. (laughs) >> Well, this is why I think this is a modern problem. Like, the young people I talk to are like, "Why do we have this rules?" They're all lawyers that got into these positions of Congress on the American side, and so with the American JEDI Contract you guys have been following very closely is, it's been like the old school Oracle, IBM, and then Amazon is leading with an innovative solution, and Microsoft has come in and re-pivoted. And so what you have is a fight for the digital future of citizenship! And I think what's happening is that we're in a massive societal transition, where the people in charge don't know what the hell they're talkin' about, technically. And they don't know who to tap to solve the problems, or even shape or frame the problems. Now, there's pockets of people that are workin' on it, but to me as someone who looks at this saying, it's a pretty simple solution, no one's ever seen this before. So, there's a metaphor you can draw, but it's a completely different problem space because it's, this is all digital, data's involved. >> We've got a lobbyists out there, and we've got some tech firms spending an enormous amount of lobbying. If those lobbyists aren't trying to steer their representatives in the right direction to come up with law that aren't going to massively undermine trade and data sharing between Europe and America, then they're making a big mistake, because we got here through some really dumb lawmaking in the U.S., I mean, there are none of the laws in Europe that are a problem here. 'Cause GDPR isn't a great difference, a great deal different from some of the laws that we have already in California and elsewhere. >> Bill, Bill. >> The laws that are at issue here -- >> Bill, Bill! You have to like, back up a little bit from that rhetoric that EU is perfect and U.S. is not, that's not true actually. >> I'm not saying we're perfect! >> No, no, you say that all the time. >> But I'm saying there's a massive lack of innovation. Yeah, yeah. >> I don't, I've never said it! >> Arm wrestle! >> Yes, yes. >> When I'm being critical of some of the dumb laws in the U.S, (Sarbjeet laughing) I'm not saying Europe is perfect. What we're trying to say is that in this particular instance, I said there was an equal balance here between meaningful protection and the maximization of economic and social value. On the meaningful protection side, America's got it very wrong in terms of the meaningful protection it provides to civil European data. On the maximization of economic and social value, I think Europe's got it wrong. I think there are a lot of things we could do in Europe to actually have far more innovation. >> Yeah. >> It's a cultural issue. The Germans want rules, that's what they crave for. America's the other way, we don't want rules, I mean, pretty much is a rebel society. And that's kind of the ethos of most tech companies. But I think you know, to me the media, there's two things that go on with this tech business. The company's themselves have to be checked by say, government, and I believe in not a lot of regulation, but enough to check the power of bad actors. Media so called "checking power", both of these major roles, they don't really know what they're talking about, and this is back to the education piece. The people who are in the media so called "checking power" and the government checking power assume that the companies are bad. Right, so yeah, because eight out of ten companies like Amazon, actually try to do good things. If you don't know what good is, you don't really, (laughs) you know, you're in the wrong game. So, I think media and government have a huge education opportunity to look at this because they don't even know what they're measuring. >> I support the level of innovation -- >> I think we're unreeling from the globalization. Like, we are undoing the globalization, and that these are the side effects, these conflicts are a side effect of that. >> Yeah, so all I'm saying is I support the focus on innovation in America, and that has driven an enormous amount of wealth and value. What I'm questioning here is do you really need to spy on us, your allies, in order to help that innovation? And I'm starting to, I mean, do you need mass surveillance of your allies? I mean, I can see you may want to have some surveillance of people who are a threat to you, but wait, guys, we're meant to be on your side, and you haven't been treating our privacy with a great deal of respect! >> You know, Saudi Arabia was our ally. You know, 9/11 happened because of them, their people, right? There is no ally here, and there is no enemy, in a way. We don't know where the rogue actors are sitting, like they don't know, they can be within the walls -- >> It's well understood I think, I agree, sorry. it's well understood that nation states are enabling terrorist groups to take out cyber attacks. That's well known, the source enables it. So, I think there's the privacy versus -- >> I'm not sure it's true in your case that it's Europeans that's doing this though. >> No, no, well you know, they share -- >> I'm a former officer in the Royal Navy, I've stood shoulder to shoulder with my U.S. counterparts. I put my life on the line on NATO exercises in real war zones, and I'm now a disabled ex-serviceman as a result of that. I mean, if I put my line on the line shoulder to shoulder with Americans, why is my privacy not respected? >> Hold on -- >> I feel it's, I was going to say actually that it's not that, like even the U.S., right? Part of the spying internally is we have internal actors that are behaving poorly. >> Yeah. >> Right, we have Marxist organizations posing as, you know, whatever it is, I'll leave it at that. But my point being is we've got a lot of that, every country has that, every country has actors and citizens and people in the system that are destined to try to overthrow the system. And I think that's what that surveillance is about. The question is, we don't have treaties, or we didn't have your explicit agreements. And that's why I'm pushing really hard here, like, they're separating privacy versus security, which is the national security, and privacy versus us as citizens in terms of our data being basically taken over for free, being used for free. >> John: I agree with that. >> That I think we have some agreement on. I just think that our governments haven't really had that conversation about what surveillance means. Maybe someone agreed and said, "Okay, that's fine. You guys can go do that, we won't tell anybody." And that's what it feels like. And I don't think we deliberately are saying, "Hey, we wanted to spy on your citizens." I think someone said, "Hey, there's a benefit here too." Otherwise I don't think the EU would have let this happen for that long unless Max had made that case and started this ball rolling, so, and Edward Snowden and other folks. >> Yeah, and I totally support the need for security. >> I want to enter the -- >> I mean we need to, where there are domestic terrorists, we need to stop them, and we need to have local action in UK to stop it happening here, and in America to stop it happening there. But if we're doing that, there is absolutely no need for the Americans to be spying on us. And there's absolutely no need for the Americans to say that privacy applies to U.S. citizens only, and not to Europeans, these are daft, it's just daft! >> That's a fair point. I'm sure GCHQ and everyone else has this covered, I mean I'm sure they do. (laughs) >> Oh, Bill, I know, I've been involved, I've been involved, and I know for a fact the U.S. and the UK are discussing I know a company called IronNet, which is run by General Keith Alexander, funded by C5 Capital. There's a lot of collaboration, because again, they're tryin' to get their arms around how to frame it. And they all agree that sharing data for the security side is super important, right? And I think IronNet has this thing called Iron Dome, which is essentially like they're saying, hey, we'll just consistency around the rules of shared data, and we can both, everyone can have their own little data. So, I think there's recognition at the highest levels of some smart people on both countries. (laughs) "Hey, let's work together!" The issue I have is just policy, and I think there's a lot of clustering going on. Clustered here around just getting out of their own way. That's my take on that. >> Are we a PG show? Wait, are we a PG show? I just got to remember that. (laughs) (Bill laughing) >> It's the internet, there's no regulation, there's no rules! >> There's no regulation! >> The European rules or is it the American rules? (Ray laughing) >> I would like to jump back quickly to the purpose of the surveillance, and especially when mass surveillance is done under the cover of national security and terror prevention. I worked with five clients in the past decade who all have been targeted under mass surveillance, which was revealed by Edward Snowden, and when they did their own investigation, and partially was confirmed by Edward Snowden in person, they found out that their purchasing department, their engineering department, big parts of their pricing data was targeted in mass surveillance. There's no way that anyone can explain me that that has anything to do with preventing terror attacks, or finding the bad guys. That is economical espionage, you cannot call it in any other way. And that was authorized by the same legislation that authorizes the surveillance for the right purposes. I'm all for fighting terror, and anything that can help us prevent terror from happening, I would be the first person to welcome it. But I do not welcome when that regulation is abused for a lot of other things under the cover of national interest. I understand -- >> Back to the lawmakers again. And again, America's been victim to the Chinese some of the individual properties, well documented, well known in tech circles. >> Yeah, but just 'cause the Chinese have targeted you doesn't give you free right to target us. >> I'm not saying that, but its abuse of power -- >> If the U.S. can sort out a little bit of reform, in the Senate and the House, I think that would go a long way to solving the issues that Europeans have right now, and a long way to sort of reaching a far better place from which we can all innovate and cooperate. >> Here's the challenge that I see. If you want to be instrumenting everything, you need a closed society, because if you have a free country like America and the UK, a democracy, you're open. If you're open, you can't stop everything, right? So, there has to be a trust, to your point, Bill. As to me that I'm just, I just can't get my arms around that idea of complete lockdown and data surveillance because I don't think it's gettable in the United States, like it's a free world, it's like, open. It should be open. But here we've got the grids, and we've got the critical infrastructure that should be protected. So, that's one hand. I just can't get around that, 'cause once you start getting to locking down stuff and measuring everything, that's just a series of walled gardens. >> So, to JD's point on the procurement data and pricing data, I have been involved in some of those kind of operations, and I think it's financial espionage that they're looking at, financial security, trying to figure out a way to track down capital flows and what was purchased. I hope that was it in your client's case, but I think it's trying to figure out where the money flow is going, more so than trying to understand the pricing data from competitive purposes. If it is the latter, where they're stealing the competitive information on pricing, and data's getting back to a competitor, that is definitely a no-no! But if it's really to figure out where the money trail went, which is what I think most of those financial analysts are doing, especially in the CIA, or in the FBI, that's really what that probably would have been. >> Yeah, I don't think that the CIA is selling the data to your competitors, as a company, to Microsoft or to Google, they're not selling it to each other, right? They're not giving it to each other, right? So, I think the one big problem I studied with FISA is that they get the data, but how long they can keep the data and how long they can mine the data. So, they should use that data as exhaust. Means like, they use it and just throw it away. But they don't, they keep mining that data at a later date, and FISA is only good for five years. Like, I learned that every five years we revisit that, and that's what happened this time, that we renewed it for six years this time, not five, for some reason one extra year. So, I think we revisit all these laws -- >> Could be an election cycle. >> Huh? >> Could be an election cycle maybe. (laughs) >> Yes, exactly! So, we revisit all these laws with Congress and Senate here periodically just to make sure that they are up to date, and that they're not infringing on human rights, or citizen's rights, or stuff like that. >> When you say you update to check they're not conflicting with anything, did you not support that it was conflicting with Privacy Shield and some of the promises you made to Europeans? At what point did that fail to become obvious? >> It does, because there's heightened urgency. Every big incident happens, 9/11 caused a lot of new sort of like regulations and laws coming into the picture. And then the last time, that the Russian interference in our election, that created some sort of heightened urgency. Like, "We need to do something guys here, like if some country can topple our elections, right, that's not acceptable." So, yeah -- >> And what was it that your allies did that caused you to spy on us and to downgrade our privacy? >> I'm not expert on the political systems here. I think our allies are, okay, loose on their, okay, I call it village politics. Like, world is like a village. Like it's so only few countries, it's not millions of countries, right? That's how I see it, a city versus a village, and that's how I see the countries, like village politics. Like there are two camps, like there's Russia and China camp, and then there's U.S. camp on the other side. Like, we used to have Russia and U.S., two forces, big guys, and they managed the whole world balance somehow, right? Like some people with one camp, the other with the other, right? That's how they used to work. Now that Russia has gone, hold on, let me finish, let me finish. >> Yeah. >> Russia's gone, there's this void, right? And China's trying to fill the void. Chinese are not like, acting diplomatic enough to fill that void, and there's, it's all like we're on this imbalance, I believe. And then Russia becomes a rogue actor kind of in a way, that's how I see it, and then they are funding all these bad people. You see that all along, like what happened in the Middle East and all that stuff. >> You said there are different camps. We thought we were in your camp! We didn't expect to be spied on by you, or to have our rights downgraded by you. >> No, I understand but -- >> We thought we were on your side! >> But, but you have to guys to trust us also, like in a village. Let me tell you, I come from a village, that's why I use the villager as a hashtag in my twitter also. Like in village, there are usually one or two families which keep the village intact, that's our roles. >> Right. >> Like, I don't know if you have lived in a village or not -- >> Well, Bill, you're making some great statements. Where's the evidence on the surveillance, where can people find more information on this? Can you share? >> I think there's plenty of evidence, and I can send some stuff on, and I'm a little bit shocked given the awareness of the FISA Act, the Cloud Act, the fact that these things are in existence and they're not exactly unknown. And many people have been complaining about them for years. I mean, we've had Safe Harbor overturned, we've had Privacy Shield overturned, and these weren't just on a whim! >> Yeah, what does JD have in his hand? I want to know. >> The Edward Snowden book! (laughs) >> By Edward Snowden, which gives you plenty. But it wasn't enough, and it's something that we have to keep in mind, because we can always claim that whatever Edward Snowden wrote, that he made it up. Every publication by Edward Snowden is an avalanche of technical confirmation. One of the things that he described about the Cisco switches, which Bill prefers to quote every time, which is a proven case, there were bundles of researchers saying, "I told you guys!" Nobody paid attention to those researchers, and Edward Snowden was smart enough to get the mass media representation in there. But there's one thing, a question I have for Sabjeet, because in the two parties strategy, it is interesting that you always take out the European Union as part. And the European Union is a big player, and it will continue to grow. It has a growing amount of trade agreements with a growing amount of countries, and I still hope, and I think think Bill -- >> Well, I think the number of countries is reducing, you've just lost one! >> Only one. (Bill laughing loudly) Actually though, those are four countries under one kingdom, but that's another point. (Bill chortling heartily) >> Guys, final topic, 5G impact, 'cause you mentioned Cisco, couldn't help think about -- >> Let me finish please my question, John. >> Okay, go ahead. How would you the United States respond if the European Union would now legalize to spy on everybody and every company, and every governmental institution within the United States and say, "No, no, it's our privilege, we need that." How would the United States respond? >> You can try that and see economically what happens to you, that's how the village politics work, you have to listen to the mightier than you, and we are economically mightier, that's the fact. Actually it's hard to swallow fact for, even for anybody else. >> If you guys built a great app, I would use it, and surveil all you want. >> Yeah, but so this is going to be driven by the economics. (John laughing) But the -- >> That's exactly what John said. >> This is going to be driven by the economics here. The big U.S. cloud firms are got to find this ruling enormously difficult for them, and they are inevitably going to lobby for a level of reform. And I think a level of a reform is needed. Nobody on your side is actually arguing very vociferously that the Cloud Act and the discrimination against Europeans is actually a particularly good idea. The problem is that once you've done the reform, are we going to believe you when you say, "Oh, it's all good now, we've stopped it!" Because with Crypto AG scandal in Switzerland you weren't exactly honest about what you were doing. With the FISA courts, so I mean FISA secret courts, the secret warrants, how do we know and what proof can we have that you've stopped doing all these bad things? And I think one of the challenges, A, going to be the reform, and then B, got to be able to show that you actually got your act together and you're now clean. And until you can solve those two, many of your big tech companies are going to be at a competitive disadvantage, and they're going to be screaming for this reform. >> Well, I think that, you know, General Mattis said in his book about Trump and the United states, is that you need alliances, and I think your point about trust and executing together, without alliances, it really doesn't work. So, unless there's some sort of real alliance, (laughs) like understanding that there's going to be some teamwork here, (Bill laughing) I don't think it's going to go anywhere. So, otherwise it'll continue to be siloed and network based, right? So to the village point, if TikTok can become a massively successful app, and they're surveilling, so and then we have to decide that we're going to put up with that, I mean, that's not my decision, but that's what's goin' on here. It's like, what is TikTok, is it good or bad? Amazon sent out an email, and they've retracted it, that's because it went public. I guarantee you that they're talkin' about that at Amazon, like, "Why would we want infiltration by the Chinese?" And I'm speculating, I have no data, I'm just saying, you know. They email those out, then they pull it back, "Oh, we didn't mean to send that." Really, hmm? (laughs) You know, so this kind of -- >> But the TRA Balin's good, you always want to get TRA Balin out there. >> Yeah, exactly. There's some spying going on! So, this is the reality. >> So, John, you were talking about 5G, and I think you know, the role of 5G, you know, the battle between Cisco and Huawei, you just have to look at it this way, would you rather have the U.S. spy on you, or would you rather have China? And that's really your binary choice at this moment. And you know both is happening, and so the question is which one is better. Like, the one that you're in alliance with? The one that you're not in alliance with, the one that wants to bury you, and decimate your country, and steal all your secrets and then commercialize 'em? Or the one kind of does it, but doesn't really do it explicitly? So, you've got to choose. (laughs) >> It's supposed to be -- >> Or you can say no, we're going to create our own standard for 5G and kick both out, that's an option. >> It's probably not as straightforward a question as, or an answer to that question as you say, because if we were to fast-forward 50 years, I would argue that China is going to be the largest trading nation in the world. I believe that China is going to have the upper hand on many of these technologies, and therefore why would we not want to use some of their innovation, some of their technology, why would we not actually be more orientated around trading with them than we might be with the U.S.? I think the U.S. is throwing its weight around at this moment in time, but if we were to fast-forward I think looking in the longterm, if I had to put my money on Huawei or some of its competitors, I think given its level of investments in research and whatever, I think the better longterm bet is Huawei. >> No, no, actually you guys need to pick a camp. It's a village again. You have to pick a camp, you can't be with both guys. >> Global village. >> Oh, right, so we have to go with the guys that have been spying on us? >> How do you know the Chinese haven't been spying on you? (Ray and John laughing loudly) >> I think I'm very happy, you find a backdoor in the Huawei equipment and you show it to us, we'll take them to task on it. But don't start bullying us into making decisions based on what-ifs. >> I don't think I'm, I'm not qualified to represent the U.S., but what we would want to say is that if you look at the dynamics of what's going on, China, we've been studying that as well in terms of the geopolitical aspects of what happens in technology, they have to do what they're doing right now. Because in 20 years our population dynamics go like this, right? You've got the one child policy, and they won't have the ability to go out and fight for those same resources where they are, so what they're doing makes sense from a country perspective and country policy. But I think they're going to look like Japan in 20 years, right? Because the xenophobia, the lack of immigration, the lack of inside stuff coming in, an aging population. I mean, those are all factors that slow down your economy in the long run. And the lack of bringing new people in for ideas, I mean that's part of it, they're a closed system. And so I think the longterm dynamics of every closed system is that they tend to fail versus open systems. So, I'm not sure, they may have better technology along the way. But I think a lot of us are probably in the camp now thinking that we're not going to aid and abet them, in that sense to get there. >> You're competing a country with a company, I didn't say that China had necessarily everything rosy in its future, it'll be a bigger economy, and it'll be a bigger trading partner, but it's got its problems, the one child policy and the repercussions of that. But that is not one of the things, Huawei, I think Huawei's a massively unlimited company that has got a massive lead, certainly in 5G technology, and may continue to maintain a lead into 6G and beyond. >> Oh yeah, yeah, Huawei's done a great job on the 5G side, and I don't disagree with that. And they're ahead in many aspects compared to the U.S., and they're already working on the 6G technologies as well, and the roll outs have been further ahead. So, that's definitely -- >> And they've got a great backer too, the financer, the country China. Okay guys, (Ray laughing) let's wrap up the segment. Thanks for everyone's time. Final thoughts, just each of you on this core issue of the news that we discussed and the impact that was the conversation. What's the core issue? What should people think about? What's your solution? What's your opinion of how this plays out? Just final statements. We'll start with Bill, Ray, Sarbjeet and JD. >> All I'm going to ask you is stop spying on us, treat us equally, treat us like the allies that we are, and then I think we've got to a bright future together! >> John: Ray? >> I would say that Bill's right in that aspect in terms of how security agreements work, I think that we've needed to be more explicit about those. I can't represent the U.S. government, but I think the larger issue is really how do we view privacy, and how we do trade offs between security and convenience, and you know, what's required for personalization, and companies that are built on data. So, the sooner we get to those kind of rules, an understanding of what's possible, what's a consensus between different countries and companies, I think the better off we will all be a society. >> Yeah, I believe the most important kind of independence is the economic independence. Like, economically sound parties dictate the terms, that's what U.S. is doing. And the smaller countries have to live with it or pick the other bigger player, number two in this case is China. John said earlier, I think, also what JD said is the fine balance between national security and the privacy. You can't have, you have to strike that balance, because the rogue actors are sitting in your country, and across the boundaries of the countries, right? So, it's not that FISA is being fought by Europeans only. Our internal people are fighting that too, like how when you are mining our data, like what are you using it for? Like, I get concerned too, when you can use that data against me, that you have some data against me, right? So, I think it's the fine balance between security and privacy, we have to strike that. Awesome. JD? I'll include a little fake check, fact check, at the moment China is the largest economy, the European Union is the second largest economy, followed directly by the USA, it's a very small difference, and I recommend that these two big parties behind the largest economy start to collaborate and start to do that eye to eye, because if you want to balance the economical and manufacturing power of China, you cannot do that as being number two and number three. You have to join up forces, and that starts with sticking with the treaties that you signed, and that has not happened in the past, almost four years. So, let's go back to the table, let's work on rules where from both sides the rights and the privileges are properly reflected, and then do the most important thing, stick to them! >> Yep, I think that's awesome. I think I would say that these young kids in high school and college, they need to come up and solve the problems, this is going to be a new generational shift where the geopolitical landscape will change radically, you mentioned the top three there. And new alliances, new kinds of re-imagination has to be there, and from America's standpoint I'll just say that I'd like to see lawmakers have, instead of a LinkedIn handle, a GitHub handle. You know, when they all go out on campaign talk about what code they've written. So, I think having a technical background or some sort of knowledge of computer science and how the internet works with sociology and societal impact will be critical for our citizenships to advance. So, you know rather a lawyer, right so? (laughs) Maybe get some law involved in that, I mean the critical lawyers, but today most people are lawyers in American politics, but show me a GitHub handle of that congressman, that senator, I'd be impressed. So, that's what we need. >> Thanks, good night! >> Ray, you want to say something? >> I wanted to say something, because I thought the U.S. economy was 21 trillion, the EU is sittin' at about 16, and China was sitting about 14, but okay, I don't know. >> You need to do math man. >> Hey, we went over our 30 minutes time, we can do an hour with you guys, so you're still good. (laughs) >> Can't take anymore. >> No go on, get in there, go at it when you've got something to say. >> I don't think it's immaterial the exact size of the economy, I think that we're better off collaborating on even and fair terms, we are -- >> We're all better off collaborating. >> Yeah. >> Gentlemen -- >> But the collaboration has to be on equal and fair terms, you know. (laughs) >> How do you define fair, good point. Fair and balanced, you know, we've got the new -- >> We did define fair, we struck a treaty! We absolutely defined it, absolutely! >> Yeah. >> And then one side didn't stick to it. >> We will leave it right there, and we'll follow up (Bill laughing) in a later conversation. Gentlemen, you guys are good. Thank you. (relaxing electronic music)