>> Announcer: From London, England, it's theCUBE! Covering Coupa Insp!re'19 EMEA. Brought to you by Coupa. >> Hey, welcome to theCUBE. Lisa Martin on the ground in London at Coupa Insp!re'19. Can you hear all the buzz around me? You probably can hear it, it's electric. The keynote just ended, and I'm very pleased to welcome, fresh from the keynote stage, we have Rachel Botsman, author and trust expert from Oxford University. Rachel, welcome to theCUBE! >> Thank you for having me. >> Your talk this morning about the intersection of trust and technology, to say it's interesting is an understatement. You had some great examples where you showed some technology brands, that we all know, and have different relationships with: Uber, Facebook, and Amazon. And the way that you measured the audience is great, you know, clap the brand that you trust the most. And it was so interesting, because we expect these technology brands to, they should be preserving our information, but we've also seen recent history, some big examples, of that trust being broken. >> Rachel: Yeah, yeah. >> Talk to us about your perspectives. >> So what I thought was interesting, well kind of unexpected for me, was no one clapped for Facebook, not one person in the room. And this is really interesting to me, because the point that I was making is that trust is really, really contextual, right? So if I had said to people, do you trust on Facebook that you can find your friends from college, they probably would've clapped. But do I trust them with my data, no. And this distinction is so important, because if you lose trust in one area as a company or a brand, and it can take time, you lose that ability to interact with people. So our relationship and our trust relationship with brands is incredibly complicated. But I think, particular tech brands, what they're realizing is that, how badly things go wrong when they're in a trust crisis. >> Talk to me about trust as a currency. You gave some great examples this morning. Money is the currency for transactions, where trust is the currency of interactions. >> Yeah, well I was trying to frame things, not because they sound nice, but how do you create a lens where people can really understand, like what is the value of this thing, and what is the role that it plays? And I'm never going to say money's not important; money is very important. But people can understand money; people value money. And I think that's because it has a physical, you can touch it, and it has an agreed value, right? Trust I actually don't believe can be measured. Trust is, what is it? It's something there, there's a connection between people. So you know when you have trust because you can interact with people. You know when you have trust because you can place their faith in them, you can share things about yourself and also share things back. So it's kind of this idea that, think of it as a currency, think of it as something that you should really value that is incredibly fragile in any situation in any organization. >> How does a company like Coupa, or an Amazon or a Facebook, how do they leverage trust and turn it into a valuable asset? >> Yeah, I don't like the idea that you sort of unlock trust. I think companies that really get it right are companies that think day in and day out around behaviors and culture. If you get behaviors and culture right, like the way people behave, whether they have empathy, whether they have integrity, whether you feel like you can depend on them, trust naturally flows from that. But the other thing that often you find with brands is they think of trust as like this reservoir, right? So it's different from awareness and loyalty; it's not like this thing that, you can have this really full up battery which means then you can launch some crazy products and everyone will trust it. We've seen this with like, Mattel, the toy brand. They launched a smart system for children called Aristotle, and within six months they had to pull it because people didn't trust what it was recording and watching in people's bedrooms. We were talking about Facebook and the cryptocurrency Libra, their new smart assistants; I wouldn't trust that. Amazon have introduced smart locks; I don't know if you've seen these? >> Lisa: Yes. >> Where if you're not home, it's inconvenient for a very annoying package slip. So you put in an Amazon lock and the delivery person will walk into your home. I trust Amazon to deliver my parcels; I don't trust them to give access to my home. So what we do with the trust and how we tap into that, it really depends on the risk that we're asking people to take. >> That's a great point that you bring about Amazon, because you look at how they are infiltrating our lives in so many different ways. There's a lot of benefits to it, in terms of convenience. I trust Amazon, because I know when I order something it's going to arrive when they say it will. But when you said about trust being contextual and said do you trust that Amazon pays their taxes, I went wow, I hadn't thought of it in that way. Would I want to trust them to come into my home to drop off a package, no. >> Rachel: Yeah. >> But the, I don't know if I want to say infiltration, into our lives, it's happening whether we like it or not. >> Well I think Amazon is really interesting. First of all because so often as consumers, and I'm guilty, we let convenience trump trust. So we talk about trust, but, you know what, like, if I don't really trust that Uber driver but I really want to get somewhere, I'll get in the car, right? I don't really trust the ethics of Amazon as a company or like what they're doing in the world, but I like the convenience. I predict that Amazon is actually going to go through a major trust crisis. >> Lisa: Really? >> Yeah. The reason why is because their trust is largely, I talked about capability and character. Amazon's trust is really built around capability. The capability of their fulfillment centers, like how efficient they are. Character wobbles, right? Like, does Bezos have integrity? Do we really feel like they care about the bookshops they're eating up? Or they want us to spend money on the right things? And when you have a brand and the trust is purely built around capability and the character piece is missing, it's quite a precarious place to be. >> Lisa: I saw a tweet that you tweeted recently. >> Uh oh! (laughs) >> Lisa: On the difference between capability and character. >> Yes, yeah. >> Lisa: And it was fascinating because you mentioned some big examples, Boeing. >> Yes. >> The two big air disasters in the last year. Facebook, obviously, the security breach. WeWork, this overly aggressive business model. And you said these companies are placing the blame, I'm not sure if that's the right word-- >> No no, the blame, yeah. >> On product or service capabilities, and you say it really is character. Can you talk to our audience about the difference, and why character is so important. >> Yeah, it's so interesting. So you know, sometimes you post things. I actually post more on LinkedIn, and suddenly like, you hit a nerve, right? Because I don't know, it's something you're summarizing that many people are feeling. And so the point of that was like, if you look at Boeing, Theranos was another example, WeWork, hundreds of banks, when something goes wrong they say it was a flaw in the product, it was a flaw in the system, it's a capability problem. And I don't think that's the case. Because the root cause of capability problems come from character and culture. And so, capability is really about the competence and reliability of someone or a product or service. Character is how someone behaves. Character gets to their intentions and motives. Character gets to, did they know about it and not tell us. Even VW is another example. >> Lisa: Yes. >> So it's not the product that is the issue. And I think we as consumers and citizens and customers, where many companies get it wrong in a trust crisis is they talk about the product fix. We won't forgive them, or we won't start giving them our trust again until we really believe something's changed about their character. I'm not sure anything has changed with Facebook's culture and character, which is why they're struggling with every move that they take, even though their intentions might be good. That's not how people in the world are viewing them. >> Do you think, taking Boeing as an example, I fly a lot, I'm sure you do as well. >> Rachel: Yeah. >> When those accidents happened, I'm sure everybody, including myself, was checking, what plane is this? >> Rachel: Yeah. >> Because when you know, especially once data starts being revealed, that demonstrated pilots, test pilots, were clearly saying something isn't right here, why do you think a company like Boeing isn't coming out and addressing that head on from an integrity perspective? Do you think that could go a long way in helping their brand reputation? >> I never, I mean I do get it, I'm married to a lawyer so I understand, legal gets involved, governance gets involved, so it's like, let's not disclose that. They're so worried about the implications. But it's this belief they can keep things hidden. It's a continual pattern, right? And that they try to show empathy, but really it comes across as some weird kind of sympathy. They don't really show humility. And so, when the CEO sits there, I have to believe he feels the pain of the human consequence of what happened. But more importantly, I have to believe it will never happen again. And again, it's not necessarily, do I trust the products Boeing creates, it's do I trust the people? Do I trust the decisions that they're making? And so it's really interesting to watch companies, Samsung, right? You can recover from a product crisis, with the phones, and they kind of go away. But it's much harder to recover from what, Boeing is a perfect example, has become a cultural crisis. >> Right, right. Talk to us about the evolution of trust. You talked about these three waves. Tell our audience about that, and what the third wave is and why we're in it, benefits? And also things to be aware of. >> Yes! (laughs) I didn't really talk about this today, because it's all about inspiration. So just to give you a sense, the way I think about trust is three chapters of human history. So the first one is called local trust; all running around villages and communities. I knew you, I knew your sister, I knew whoever was in that village. And it was largely based on reputation. So, I borrowed money from someone I knew, I went to the baker. Now this type of trust, it was actually phenomenally effective, but we couldn't scale it. So when we wanted to trade globally, the Industrial Revolution, moving to cities, we invented what I call institutional trust. And that's everything from financial systems to insurance products, all these mechanisms that allow trust to flow on a different level. Now what's happening today, it's not those two things are going away and they're not important; they are. It's that what technology inherently does, particularly networks, marketplaces, and platforms, is it takes this trust that used to be very hierarchical and linear, we used to look up to the CEO, we used to look up to the expert, and it distributes it around networks and platforms. So you can see that at Coupa, right? And this is amazing because it can unlock value, it can create marketplaces. It can change the way we share, connect, collaborate. But I think what's happened is that, sort of the idealism around this and the empowerment is slightly tinged, in a healthy way, realizing a lot can go wrong. So distributed trust doesn't necessarily mean distributed responsibility. My biggest insight from observing many of these communities is that, we like the idea of empowerment, we like the idea of collaboration, and we like the idea of control, but when things go wrong, they need a center. Does that make sense? >> Lisa: Absolutely, yes. >> So, a lot of the mess that we're seeing in the world today is actually caused by distributed trust. So when I like, read a piece of information that isn't from a trusted source and I make a decision to vote for someone, just an example. And so we're trying to figure out, what is the role of the institution in this distributed world? And that's why I think things have got incredibly messy. >> It certainly has the potential for that, right? Looking at, one of the things that I also saw that you were talking about, I think it was one of your TED Talks, is reputation capital. And you said you believe that will be more powerful than credit history in the 21st century. How can people, like you and I, get, I want to say control, over our reputation, when we're doing so many transactions digitally-- >> Rachel: I know. >> And like I think you were saying in one of your talks, moving from one country to another and your credit history doesn't follow you. How can somebody really control their trust capital and creative positive power from it? >> They can't. >> They can't? Oh no! >> I don't want to disappoint you, but there's always something in a TED speech that you wish you could take out, like 10 years later, and be like, not that you got it wrong, but that there's a naivety, right? So it is working in some senses. So what is really hard is like, if I have a reputation on Airbnb, I have a reputation on Amazon, on either side of the marketplace, I feel like I own that, right? That's my value, and I should be able to aggregate that and use that to get a loan, or get a better insurance, because it's a predictor of how I behave in the future. So I don't believe credit scores are a good predictor of behavior. That is very hard to do, because the marketplaces, they believe they own the data, and they have no incentive to share the reputation. So believe me, like so many companies after, actually it was wonderful after that TED Talk, many tried to figure out how to aggregate reputation. Where I have seen it play out as an idea, and this is really very rewarding, is many entrepreneurs have taken the idea and gone to emerging markets, or situations where people have no credit history. So Tala is a really good example, which is a lending company. Insurance companies are starting to look at this. There's a company called Traity. Where they can't get a loan, they can't get a product, they can't even open a bank account because they have no traditional credit history. Everyone has a reputation somewhere, so they can tap into these networks and use that to have access to things that were previously inaccessible. So that's the application I'm more excited about versus having a trust score. >> A trust score that we would be able to then use for our own advantages, whether it's getting a job, getting a loan. >> Yeah, and then unfortunately what also happened was China, and God forbid that I in any way inspired this decision, decided they would have a national trust score. So they would take what you're buying online and what you were saying online, all these thousands of interactions, and that the government would create a trust score that would really impact your life: the schools that your children could go to, and there's a blacklist, and you know, if you jaywalk your face is projected and your score goes down. Like, this is like an episode of Black Mirror. >> It's terrifying. >> Yeah. >> There's a fine line there. Rachel, I wish we had more time, because we could keep going on and on and on. But I want to thank you-- >> A pleasure. >> For coming right from the keynote stage to our set; it was a pleasure to meet you. >> On that dark note. >> Yes! (laughing) For Rachel Botsman, I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE from Coupa Insp!re London '19. Thanks for watching. (digital music)

>> from Santa Clara in the heart of Silicon Valley. It's the Q covering the Churchills 2019 brought to you by Silicon Angle Media. >> Hey, welcome back, everybody. Jefe Rick here with the Cube. We're in Santa Clara, California At the Churchills. It's the ninth annual kind of awards banquet at the Church O Club. It's on, and the theme this year is all about leadership. And we're excited to have not one of the winners, but one of the newest board members of the church, Oh, club. And someone is going to be interviewing some of the winners at a very many time. Cuba LEM Ray Wong, You know, from Constellation Research of founder, chief analyst >> and also >> a new board member for the Churchill Club Brigade, is >> also being back here. I love this event. There's one my favorite ones. You get to see all the cool interviews, >> right? So you're interviewing Grandstand from Pallet on for the life changer award. >> Yeah, so this is really incredible. I mean, this company has pretty much converge right. We're talking, It's media, It's sports, It's fitness. It's like social at the same time. And it's completely changed. So many people they've got more writers than soul cycle. Can you believe that? >> Yeah. I like to ride my bike outside, so I'm just not part of this whole thing. But I guess I guess on those bikes you can write anywhere >> you can write anywhere, anywhere with anyone. But it's not that. It's the classes, right? You basically hop on. You see the classes. People are actually pumping you up there. Okay, Go, go, go. You can see all the other riders are in the space. It's kind >> of >> addictive. Let's let's shift gears. Talk about leadership more generally, because things were a little rough right here in the Valley right now. And people are taking some hits and black eyes. You talk to a lot of leaders. She go to a tonic, shows you got more shows. A. We go to talk to a lot of CEOs when you kind of take a step back about what makes a good leader, what doesn't make a good leader? What are some of the things that jump into your head? >> You know, we really think about a dynamic leadership model. It's something conceit on my Twitter handle. It's basically the fact that you got a balance. All these different traits. Leaders have to perform in different ways in different situation. Something like Oh, wow, that's a general. They've done a great job commanding leadership. Other times we had individuals, a wonderful, empathetic leader, right? There's a balance between those types of traits that have to happen, and they curve like seven different dimensions and each of these dimensions. It's like sometimes you're gonna have to be more empathetic. Sometimes you got to be more realistic. Sometimes you're going to be harder. And I think right now we have this challenge because there's a certain style that's being imposed on all the leaders that might not be correct >> theater thing. The hypothesis for you to think about is, you know, when a lot of these people start the Silicon Valley companies the classic. It's not like they went to P and G and work their way up through the ranks. You know, they started a company, it was cool. And suddenly boom. You know, they get hundreds of millions of dollars, the I po and now you've got platforms that are impacting geopolitical things all over the world. They didn't necessarily sign up for that. That's not necessarily what they wanted to do, and they might not be qualified. So, you know, Is it? Is it fair to expect the leader of a tech company that just built some cool app that suddenly grew into, ah, ubiquitous platform over the world that many, many types of people are using for good and bad to suddenly be responsible? That's really interesting situation for these people. >> Well, that's what we talked about the need for responsive and responsible leadership. Those are two different types of traits. Look, the founding individual might not be the right person to do that, but they can surround themselves with team members that can do that. That could make sure that they're being responsive or responsible, depending on what's required for each of those traits. You know, great examples like that Black Mirror episode where you see the guru of, like, some slasher meet a guy. Some guys like Colin is like, you know, he wants to make sure that you know someone's paying attention to him. Well, the thing is like a lot of times, at least folks are surrounded by people that don't have that empathetic You might not have had what a founder is looking at, or it could be the flip side. The founder might not be empathetic. They're just gung ho, right, ready to build out the next set of features and capabilities that they wanted to d'oh! And they need that empathy that's around there. So I think we're going to start to see that mix and blend. But it's hard, right? I mean, going through a start up as a CEO and founder is very, very different than coming in through the corporate ranks. There's a >> very good running a company, you know. It's funny again. You go to a lot of shows. We get a lot of shows, a lot of key, knows a lot of CEO keynotes, and it's just interesting. Some people just seem to have that It factor one that jumps off the top is Dobie. You know, some people just seemed >> like the have it >> where they can get people to follow, and it's it's really weird. We just said John W. Thompson, on talking about Sathya changing the culture at Microsoft, with hundreds and hundreds of thousands of employees distributed all over the world. What a creative and amazing job to be able to turn that ship. >> Oh, it is. I mean, I can turn on the charm and just, like, get your view Lee excited about something just like that, right? And it's also about making sure you bring in the input and make people feel that they're inclusive. But you gotta make decisions at some point, too. Sometimes you have to make the tough choices. You cut out products, you cut out certain types of policies, or sometimes you gotta be much more responsive to customers. Right? Might look like you're eating crow. But you know what? At the inn today, cos they're really built around customers or state Kohler's stay close air bigger today than just shareholders. >> Right. Last question. Churchill Club. How'd you get involved? What makes you excited to jump on board? >> You know, this is like an institution for the valley, right? This is you know, if you think about like the top interviews, right? If you think about the top conversations, the interesting moments in the Valley, they've all happened here. And it's really about making sure that you know, the people that I know the people that you know there's an opportunity to re create that for the next set of generations. I remember coming here when it's like I go back, I think give Hey, just I don't hear anybody in 96 right? And just thinking like, Hey, what were the cool activities? What were the interesting conversations and the church? The club was definitely one of those, and it's time to give back. >> Very good. All right, well, congrats on that on that new assignment. And good luck with the interview tonight. Hey, thanks a lot. All right. He's Ray. I'm Jeff. You wanted the Cube with that? Churchill's in Santa Clara, California. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time.

>> Announcer: Live from San Juan, Puerto Rico, it's The Cube covering Blockchain Unbound, brought to you by Blockchain Industries. (rhythmic salsa music) >> Hello, everyone, welcome back to our exclusive coverage here in Puerto Rico, Blockchain Unbound Global Conference where the leaders in the industry from entrepreneurs to investors and everything in between, from San Francisco to New York, Miami, South Africa, Russia, all over the world are here in Puerto Rico, The Cube's coverage. Our next guest is Naomi Brockwell who is hosting the event here on stage. She's emceeing it all. You go to her YouTube channels /naomibrockwell, check out her videos, hosts events all over the industry, Blockchain, celebrity, thought leader, futurist. What else are you? >> You're very, very kind. It's all not true, but I have been in the space for awhile and I love Blockchain text, so it's exciting to be here. >> I'm really impressed by your stamina and passion on stage. What a line up today, so give us the quick highlights What happened today, we were here filming. What happened inside the venue? We saw some great talks come through there. >> Yeah, we saw some great ones. A probably a highlight for me was seeing Alena. She was the former CEO of SatoshiLabs, which created Trezor, one of mt favorite hard wallets, by the way, and it was just great listening to her talk about security because that is something that is so important and people do not take seriously enough. I have people telling me, "Oh, Naomi, I started up this wallet, and I stood my public in the..." I was like, "So did you write down your private key and all that, it's in a safe place?" He's like "Yup, it's in my DropBox." I'm like, "No, what are you doing, this is not good!" Hearing her basically say anything that has touched the internet ever, any device that has been on the internet ever is not secure. Do not trust it, you need to use offline things. >> There's a lot of wallet grabbing going on digitally. >> Absolutely. >> That's come up. I saw some stuff on Telegram, people that we know, be like, "Hey, beware, a lot of hacking out there. "Got to watch your coins." >> And also, I mean there's just huge gains to be made, right, so it makes sense, especially we expect the price of Bitcoin to go up. You have hackers just targeting at specific wallets, and specific vulnerabilities, and they just keep going until they get through, so you've got to be vigilant and you got to take every precaution possible. Got to take it seriously. >> Is there a best practice that you observed? >> Absolutely. Don't store anything online. And another thing, people are telling me, "Yeah, you know, I have my private key written down." I'm like, "Great, you wrote it down twice?" They're like, "Yeah, I just printed that out twice." I'm like, "No, your printer stores an image "of everything you've ever printed out "and it's connected to wifi at all times. "That is going to be hacked. "Do not print out your private key, "your paper wallet, anything. "You've got to write this down." Paper and pen is the best practice you can use and-- >> Going old school analog, big time. >> Absolutely. And isn't that funny? You have this amazing new tech that's fantastic, cutting edge, and what are we doing to keep it safe? Pen and paper. >> Yeah, turn off all wifi, put on some vinyl records, eight-track recorder, going old school. Okay, I got to get-- >> But holding your own coins, holding your own money, having control of your own money, no one said that's the easiest practice. They just said it was the most secure and is going to give you the most power over your funds, and so if you want to do that, there's a price to pay and that is being vigilant about your security. >> One of the things about that I'm interested in talking to you about is being someone who's present at creation of a big movement like this. You've seen the evolution. What's the growing pains in the industry 'cause we're seeing a lot of people who are the pioneers, now that people, I won't call them tourists because they're still young and emerging, but you have a lot of get-rich-quick schemes. Those are obviously being filtered out pretty quickly by the community, but you're seeing new entrants come in. You have financing, got big numbers coming in, big money. How has it evolved, I mean, what's your observation? How is it maturing? What's some of the vibe? You've got some factions over here, you've got some factions over there. People are still getting along. What's the overall sentiment? >> I've been in this space for about five years, so in this industry, it's like being an absolute veteran, and what you've seen is it started out as this very libertarian space. People were interested in taking their money out of the control of government and having more autonomy over their finds, having more control over their funds. Blockchain was invented as a tool for giving people more freedom, and what you're seeing now is a bunch of people who entered the space who don't necessarily share that ethos, but what I love about Blockchain is that they're taking this technology that is inherently taking people towards a more decentralized free society, and they're applying it to all different industries. So my point of view, it doesn't bother me at all that the new entrants don't necessarily share this passion for freedom that the people who've been here since the beginning have, but the fact that they are taking this and making the world a more free place regardless is really exciting to me. >> And that's the real opportunity 'cause inherently the ethos is Blockchain, so it's not so much a political orientation or this or that. It's how you apply it. >> Exactly, and so Blockchain, being a decentralized ledger is great because when you decentralize any power structure, no matter what industry it is, I mean, you're really making people more free, you're giving them more responsibility, and I like seeing things become decentralized. >> Certainly we're a media company, we're kind of a new car, we don't believe in a central gatekeeper, so I got to ask you the question. As a YouTuber who has a big fan base and in the community, it's really disheartening for me to see John Oliver take down Brock Pierce, although it was a hilarious video up until the point where he maliciously went after Brock in a very vicious way. How does one person have that power. I mean, it shouldn't be that way, or the New York Times or a certain publication that, they're the gatekeeper still. That was an example I looked at and said, "That's where Blockchain can disrupt the media." I mean, it's great comedy, but it kind of went over the top. >> For me, I mean-- >> He got fired by the Eagles project. They wiped his name off everything. I mean, that's just, I just see that as a problem. You, what's your thoughts? >> When you say how do these people get there, John Oliver is a funny guy. I see how he got there, he's very talented, he has a great team, great writing, but that section, I thought it was pretty spot on for most of the Bitcoin segment. It got to that section, I was like, "Oh, this is kind of sloppy research." so that was disappointing. I saw that Brendan Bloomer had a nice response that he posted. He's the head of EOS. >> What did he say? >> He was just very funny and playful with John, so that was nice to see. He set him straight in terms of saying like, "What does this technology enable?" He was basically arguing Blockchain doesn't go far enough. It doesn't fulfill the needs that I see in society so I created this other thing which does XYZ. He was authoritative in stating that, "no, you just don't understand the tech." He basically clarified the Brock situation and said, "No, actually having him involved was really great." He's not involved for various reasons. Yeah, it was an interesting segment that the-- >> It was so funny after that one point. I'm like, "Oh, boy." >> I was enjoying it up til then. I was like, "Okay, this makes sense, you know. >> It's funny. >> And then it gets up to that and I'm like, "Okay, this just became an at home and I'm going to tag. This is a cheap throw, and people do that with Bitcoin. Since it's inception, you've seen people in media and mainstream media in particular target Bitcoin and they're just adopting the government narrative saying, "Oh, everyone in this industry is corrupt," or "Everyone in this industry is an ICO scammer," or "Everyone in this industry is a drug runner "and they're all selling drugs on the dark web." It's like, you know what, you can do some research and do a bit better than that, so to see John Oliver perpetuating those at-home and I'm going to attack was disappointing, but at the same time, we are seeing that narrative shift, and you're seeing more news outlets become more positive about Bitcoin. >> Also the data is the self-government and the community has the data. The truth is going to get out there. That's the purpose of Bitcoin, Blockchain, and Crypto. You've got consensus, you've got algorithms, you've got machine learning. Okay, cool. What are you up to? You've got an exciting couple things going on. You've got a lot going on, so take a quick minute to explain your big project. You've got some exciting, cool things, share it. >> Got some fun things going on at the moment. While I'm not emceeing 20 to 40 Blockchain conferences a year, which is exciting, but takes up a lot of my time, I am a television producer. I have my own show. It's Bitcoin, Blockchain-tech based. Then on top of that, I'm a film producer, television producer. We're working on a really exciting series right now. It's called The HardFork Series. It's this dystopian future, it's a sci-fi thriller. $18 million, or it's a large budget, and we have one of the guys from Ozark, on Netflix originally. If you haven't seen it, you should see it. It's a great show. Christopher James Baker is our lead and the community support we have garnered for this project is great because we have not only Hollywood types, our director is a Sundance alumni. We've also got people in the Crypto Space who have a huge amount of credibility. We've got Bruce Fenton, Jason King on our Board of Advisors. People who understand the space, so the community is excited about for the first time having a mainstream production that is being created with a large budget where people in the industry have control of the narrative. We haven't had control of the narrative yet. >> That's true. >> The government's still controlling it, mainstream media's still controlling it, and so to create a series that could potentially expose people to this technology for the first time and to have control of that narrative is exciting. >> Is it going to be inspirational, it going to be a comedy? >> It's going to be gritty, it's a sci-fi thriller. We call it a crypto-thriller noir. Is that not the best genre you've ever heard? It's pretty cool. It's this idea that in the future the government has their own Blockchain and there's Crypto Coins that they have. It's all centralized and they control the populous with this augmented reality where everything is gamified. Basically the idea is the government's trying to distract people from important issues, like gamifying everything. You have this group of renegades who comes in. They're like, "No, we're going to decentralize this." They come and work their magic. >> It's Mr. Robot meets Black Mirror. >> Oh, yeah, no, it's pretty great. >> Kind of thing goin' on? It basically is a tale about the power of decentralization and how it can disrupt all authoritarian role, which I think is just a great topic for right now. >> What's your background? Where are you, out of LA, New York? >> I'm based in New York. My background actually. >> How'd you get here? >> I was an opera singer. That's how I got here. I moved to New York as an opera singer and then pivoted into movie production, and from there went on to television production. I got into the Crypto Space because I'm really interested in Australian economics and love the philosophy that Bitcoin was created on. It's been an interesting journey. >> You got addicted. >> Yeah, now I kind of-- >> You went to the light. >> Yeah, I'm bringing everything together now with my Bitcoin, economics-based, Crypto-thriller noir, so it's pretty exciting. >> I'm super impressed. Congratulations on all your continued success. Great job emceeing the Blockchain Unbound. >> Thank you. >> Great energy, great mind, great to have you on The Cube. Thanks for sharing >> It's wonderful to be here. >> your story. Thanks for everything. It's The Cube, I'm John Furrier here. Breaking down, we've got all the action in Puerto Rico. Thought leaders, entrepreneurs, investors, people in the industry sharing their story. Sharing the data with you, that's our mission. Thanks for watching. Day two tomorrow, we'll see you then. (engaging tones)

>> Hey welcome back everybody, Jeff Frick here with theCUBE we're at the data privacy day at Twitter's world headquarters in downtown San Fransciso and we're really excited to get into it with our next guest Dr. Andreas Weigend, he is now at the Social Data Lab, used to be at Amazon, recently published author. Welcome. >> Good to be here, morning. >> Absolutely, so give us a little about what is Social Data Lab for people who aren't that familiar with it and what are you doing over at Berkeley? >> Alright, so let's start with what is social data? Social data is a data people create and share whether they know it or not and what that means is Twitter is explicit but also a geo location or maybe even just having photos about you. I was in Russia all day during the election day in the United States with Putin, and I have to say that people now share on Facebook what the KGB wouldn't have gotten out of them under torture. >> So did you ever see the Saturday Night Live sketch where they had a congressional hearing and the guy the CIA guy says, Facebook is the most successful project that we've ever launched, people tell us where they are who they're with and what they're going to do, share pictures, location, it's a pretty interesting sketch. >> Only be taught by Black Mirror, some of these episodes are absolutely amazing. >> People can't even watch is it what I have not seen I have to see but they're like that's just too crazy. Too real, too close to home. >> Yeah, so what was the question? >> So let's talk about your new book. >> Oh that was social data. >> Yeah social data >> Yeah, and so I call it actually social data revolution. Because if you think back, 10, 20 years ago we absolutely we doesn't mean just you and me, it means a billion people. They think about who they are, differently from 20 years ago, think Facebook as you mentioned. How we buy things, we buy things based on social data we buy things based on what other people say. Not on what some marketing department says. And even you know, the way we think about information I mean could you do a day without Google? >> No >> No. >> Could you go an hour without Google? >> An hour, yes, when I sleep. But some people actually they Google in their sleep. >> Well and they have their health tracker turned on while they sleep to tell them if they slept well. >> I actually find this super interesting. How dependent I am to know in the morning when I wake up before I can push a smiley face or the okay face or the frowny face, to first see how did I sleep? And if the cycles were nice up and down, then it must have been a good night. >> So it's interesting because the concept from all of these kind of biometric feedback loops is if you have the data, you can change your behavior based on the data, but on the other hand there is so much data and do we really change our behaivor based on the data? >> I think the question is a different one. The question is alright, we have all this data but how can we make sure that this data is used for us, not against us. Within a few hundred meters of here there's a company where employees were asked to wear a fit bit or tracking devices which retain more generally. And then one morning one employee came in after you know not having had an exactly solid night of sleep shall we say and his boss said I'm sorry but I just looked at your fit bit you know this is an important meeting, we can't have you at that meeting. Sorry about that. >> True story? >> Yeah >> Now that's interesting. So I think the fit bit angle is interesting when that is a requirement to have company issued health insurance and they see you've been sitting on your couch too much. Now how does that then run into the HIPPA regulations. >> You know, they have dog walkers here. I'm not sure where you live in San Francisco. But in the area many people have dogs. And I know that a couple of my neighbors they give when the dog walker comes to take the dog, they also give their phone to the dog walker so now it looks like they are taking regular walks and they're waiting for the discount from health insurance. >> Yeah, it's interesting. Works great for the person that does walk or gives their phone to the dog walker. But what about the person that doesn't, what about the person that doesn't stop at stop signs. What happens in a world on business models based on aggregated risk pooling when you can segment the individual? >> That is a very very very biased question. It's a question of fairness. So if we know everything about everybody what would it mean to be fair? As you said, insurance is built on pooling risk and that means by nature that there are things that we don't know about people. So maybe, we should propose lbotomy data lobotomy. So people actually have some part chopped off out of the data chopped off. So now we can pool again. >> Interesting >> Of course not, the answer is that we as society should come up with ways of coming up with objective functions, how do we weigh the person you know taking a walk and then it's easy to agree on the function then get the data and rank whatever insurance premium whatever you're talking about here rank that accordingly. So I really think it's a really important concept which actually goes back to my time at Amazon. Where we came up with fitness functions as we call it. And it takes a lot of work to have probably spent 50 hours on that with me going through groups and groups and groups figuring out, what do we want the fitness function to be like? You have to have the buy in of the groups you know it they just think you know that is some random management thing imposed on us, it's not going to happen. But if they understand that's the output they're managing for, then not bad. >> So I want to follow up on the Amazon piece because we're big fans of Jeff Hamilton and Jeff Bezzos who we go to AWS and it's interesting excuse me, James Hamilton when he talks about the resources that EWS can bring to bear around privacy and security and networking and all this massive infrastructure being built in terms of being able to protect privacy once you're in the quote un-quote public cloud versus people trying to execute that at the individual company level and you know RSA is in a couple of weeks the amount of crazy scary stuff that is coming in for people that want interviews around some of this crazy security stuff. When you look at kind of public cloud versus private cloud and privacy you know supported by a big heavy infrastructure like what EWS has versus a Joe Blow company you know trying to implement them themselves, how do you see that challenge. I mean I don't know how the person can compete with having the resourses again the aggregated resources pool that James Hamilton has to bring to barrel this problem. >> So I think we really need to distinguish two things. Which is security versus privacy. So for security there's no question in my mind that Joe Blow, with this little PC has not a chance against our Chinese or Russian friends. Is no question for me that Amazon or Google have way better security teams than anybody else can afford. Because it is really their bread and butter. And if there's a breach on that level then I think it is terrible for them. Just think about the Sony breach on a much smaller scale. That's a very different point from the point of privacy. And from the point about companies deliberately giving the data about you for targeting purposes for instance. And targeting purposes to other companies So I think for the cloud there I trust, I trust Google, I trust Amazon that they are doing hopefully a better job than the Russian hackers. I am more interested in the discussion on the value of data. Over the privacy discussion after all this is the world privacy day and there the question is what do people understand as the trade off they have, what they give in order to get something. People have talked about Google having this impossible irresistible value proposition that for all of those little data you get for instance I took Google Maps to get here, of course Google needs to know where I am to tell me to turn left at the intersection. And of course Google has to know where I want to be going. And Google knows that a bunch of other people are going there today, and you probably figure out that something interesting is happening here. >> Right >> And so those are the interesting questions from me. What do we do with data? What is the value of data? >> But A I don't really think people understand the amount of data that they're giving over and B I really don't think that they understand I mean now maybe they're starting to understand the value because of the value of companies like Google and Facebook that have the data. But do you see a shifting in A the awareness, and I think it's even worse with younger kids who just have lived on their mobile phones since the day they were conscious practically these days. Or will there be a value to >> Or will they even mobile before they were born? Children now come pre-loaded, because the parents take pictures of their children before they are born >> That's true. And you're right and the sonogram et cetera. But and then how has mobile changed this whole conversation because when I was on Facebook on my PC at home very different set of information than when it's connected to all the sensors in my mobile phone when Facebook is on my mobile phone really changes where I am how fast I'm moving, who I'm in proximity to it completely changed the privacy game. >> Yes so geo location and the ACLU here in Northern California chapter has a very good quote on that. "Geo location is really extremely powerful variable" Now what was the question? >> How has this whole privacy thing changed now with the proliferation of the mobile, and the other thing I would say, when you have kids that grew up with mobile and sharing on the young ones don't use Facebook anymore, Instagram, Snap Chat just kind of the notion of sharing and privacy relative to folks that you know wouldn't even give their credit card over the telephone not that long ago, much less type it into a keyboard, um do they really know the value do they really understand the value do they really get the implications when that's the world in which they've lived in. Most of them, you know they're just starting to enter the work force and haven't really felt the implications of that. >> So for me the value of data is how much the data impacts a decision. So for the side of the individual, if I have data about the restaurant, and that makes me decide whether to go there or to not go there. That is having an impact on my decision thus the data is valuable. For a company a decision whether to show me this offer or that offer that is how data is valued from the company. So that kind of should be quantified The value of the picture of my dog when I was a child. That is you know so valuable, I'm not talking about this. I'm very sort of rational here in terms of value of data as the impact is has on decisions. >> Do you see companies giving back more of that value to the providers of that data? Instead of you know just simple access to useful applications but obviously the value exceeds the value of the application they're giving you. >> So you use the term giving back and before you talked about kids giving up data. So I don't think that it is quite the right metaphor. So I know that metaphor come from the physical world. That sometimes has been data is in your oil and that indeed is a good metaphor when it comes to it needs to be refined to have value. But there are other elements where data is very different from oil and that is that I don't really give up data when I share and the company doesn't really give something back to me but it is much interesting exchange like a refinery that I put things in and now I get something not necessarily back I typically get something which is very different from what I gave because it has been combined with the data of a billion other people. And that is where the value lies, that my data gets combined with other peoples data in some cases it's impossible to actually take it out it's like a drop of ink, a drop in the ocean and it spreads out and you cannot say, oh I want my ink back. No, it's too late for that. But it's now spread out and that is a metaphor I think I have for data. So people say, you know I want to be in control of my data. I often think they don't have deep enough thought of what they mean by that. I want to change the conversation of people saying You what can I get by giving you the data? How can you help me make better decisions? How can I be empowered by the data which you are grabbing or which you are listening to that I produce. That is a conversation which I want to ask here at the Privacy Day. >> And that's happening with like Google Maps obviously you're exchanging the information, you're walking down the street, you're headed here they're telling you that there's a Starbucks on the corner if you want to pick up a coffee on the way. So that is already kind of happening right and that's why obviously Google has been so successful. Because they're giving you enough and you're giving them more and you get in this kind of virtuous cycle in terms of the information flow but clearly they're getting a lot more value than you are in terms of their you know based on their market capitalization you know, it's a very valuable thing in the aggregation. So it's almost like a one plus one makes three >> Yes. >> On their side. >> Yes, but it's a one trick pony ultimately. All of the money we make is rats. >> Right, right that's true. But in-- >> It's a good one to point out-- >> But then it begs the question too when we no longer ask but are just delivered that information. >> Yes, I have a friend Gam Dias and he runs a company called First Retail, and he makes the point that there will be no search anymore in a couple of years from now. What are you talking about? I search every day, but is it. Yes. But You know, you will get the things before you even think about it and with Google now a few years ago when other things, I think he is quite right. >> We're starting to see that, right where the cards come to you with a guess as to-- >> And it's not so complicated If let's see you go to the symphony you know, my phone knows that I'm at the symphony even if I turn it off, it know where I turned it off. And it knows when the symphony ends because there are like a thousand other people, so why not get Ubers, Lyfts closer there and amaze people by wow, your car is there already. You know that is always a joke what we have in Germany. In Germany we have a joke that says, Hey go for vacation in Poland your car is there already. But maybe I shouldn't tell those jokes. >> Let's talk about your book. So you've got a new book that came out >> Yeah >> Just recently released, it's called Data for the People. What's in it what should people expect, what motivated you to write the book? >> Well, I'm actually excited yesterday I got my first free copies not from the publisher and not from Amazon. Because they are going by the embargo by which is out next week. But Barnes and Noble-- >> They broke the embargo-- Barnes and Noble. Breaking news >> But three years of work and basically it is about trying to get people to embrace the data they create and to be empowered by the data they create. Lots of stories from companies I've worked with Lots of stories also from China, I have a house in China I spend a month or two months there every year for the last 15 years and the Chinese ecosystem is quite different from the US ecosystem and you of course know that the EU regulations are quite different from the US regulations. So, I wrote on what I think is interesting and I'm looking forward to actually rereading it because they told me I should reread it before I talk about it. >> Because when did you submit it? You probably submitted it-- >> Half a year >> Half a year ago, so yeah. Yeah. So it's available at Barnes and Noble and now Amazon >> It is available. I mean if you order it now, you'll get it by Monday. >> Alright, well Dr. Andreas Weigin thanks for taking a few minutes, we could go forever and ever but I think we've got to let you go back to the rest of the sessions. >> Thank you for having me. >> Alright, pleasure Jeff Frick, you're watching theCUBE see you next time.