>> Narrator: New York City, it's the Cube covering CyberConnect 2017 brought to you by Centrify and the Institute for Critical Infrastructure Technology. >> Welcome back, everyone. This is the Cube's live coverage in New York City's Grand Hyatt Ballroom for CyberConnect 2017 presented by Centrify. I'm John Furrier, the co-host of the Cube with my co-host this week is Dave Vellante, my partner and co-founder and co-CEO with me in SiliconAngle Media in the Cube. Our next guest is James Scott who is the co-founder and senior fellow at ICIT. Welcome to the Cube. >> Thanks for having me. >> You guys are putting on this event, really putting the content together. Centrify, just so everyone knows, is underwriting the event but this is not a Centrify event. You guys are the key content partner, developing the content agenda. It's been phenomenal. It's an inaugural event so it's the first of its kind bringing in industry, government, and practitioners all together, kind of up leveling from the normal and good events like Black Hat and other events like RSA which go into deep dives. Here it's a little bit different. Explain. >> Yeah, it is. We're growing. We're a newer think tank. We're less than five years old. The objective is to stay smaller. We have organizations, like Centrify, that came out of nowhere in D.C. so we deal, most of what we've done up until now has been purely federal and on the Hill so what I do, I work in the intelligence community. I specialize in social engineering and then I advise in the Senate for the most part, some in the House. We're able to take these organizations into the Pentagon or wherever and when we get a good read on them and when senators are like, "hey, can you bring them back in to brief us?" That's when we know we have a winner so we started really creating a relationship with Tom Kemp, who's the CEO and founder over there, and Greg Cranley, who heads the federal division. They're aggressively trying to be different as opposed to trying to be like everyone else, which makes it easy. If someone wants to do something, they have to be a fellow for us to do it, but if they want to do it, just like if they want to commission a paper, we just basically say, "okay, you can pay for it but we run it." Centrify has just been excellent. >> They get the community model. They get the relationship that you have with your constituents in the community. Trust matters, so you guys are happy to do this but more importantly, the content. You're held to a standard in your community. This is new, not to go in a different direction for a second but this is what the community marketing model is. Stay true to your audience and trust. You're relied upon so that's some balance that you guys have to do. >> The thing is we deal with cylance and others. Cylance, for example, was the first to introduce machine learning artificial intelligence to get passed that mutating hash for endpoint security. They fit in really well in the intelligence community. The great thing about working with Centrify is they let us take the lead and they're very flexible and we just make sure they come out on top each time. The content, it's very content driven. In D.C., we have at our cocktail receptions, they're CIA, NSA, DARPA, NASA. >> You guys are the poster child of be big, think small. >> Exactly. Intimate. >> You say Centrify is doing things differently. They're not falling in line like a lemming. What do you mean by that? What is everybody doing that these guys are doing differently? >> I think in the federal space, I think commercial too, but you have to be willing to take a big risk to be different so you have to be willing to pay a premium. If people work with us, they know they're going to pay a premium but we make sure they come out on top. What they do is, they'll tell us, Centrify will be like, "look, we're going to put x amount of dollars into a lunch. "Here are the types of pedigree individuals "that we need there." Maybe they're not executives. Maybe they're the actual practitioners at DHS or whatever. The one thing that they do different is they're aggressively trying to deviate from the prototype. That's what I mean. >> Like a vendor trying to sell stuff. >> Yeah and the thing is, that's why when someone goes to a Centrify event, I don't work for Centrify (mumbles). That's how they're able to attract. If you see, we have General Alexander. We've got major players here because of the content, because it's been different and then the other players want to be on the stage with other players, you know what I mean. It almost becomes a competition for "hey, I was asked to come to an ICIT thing" you know, that sort of thing. That's what I mean. >> It's reputation. You guys have a reputation and you stay true to that. That's what I was saying. To me, I think this is the future of how things get done. When you have a community model, you're held to a standard with your community. If you cross the line on that standard, you head fake your community, that's the algorithm that brings you a balance so you bring good stuff to the table and you vet everyone else on the other side so it's just more of a collaboration, if you will. >> The themes here, what you'll see is within critical infrastructure, we try to gear this a little more towards the financial sector. We brought, from Aetna, he set up the FS ISAC. Now he's with the health sector ISAC. For this particular geography in New York, we're trying to have it focus more around health sector and financial critical infrastructure. You'll see that. >> Alright, James, I've got to ask you. You're a senior fellow. You're on the front lines with a great Rolodex, great relationships in D.C., and you're adivising and leaned upon by people making policy, looking at the world and the general layout in which, the reality is shit's happening differently now so the world's got to change. Take us through a day in the life of some of the things you guys are seeing and what's the outlook? I mean, it's like a perfect storm of chaos, yet opportunity. >> It really depends. Each federal agency, we look at it from a Hill perspective, it comes down to really educating them. When I'm in advising in the House, I know I'm going to be working with a different policy pedigree than a Senate committee policy expert, you know what I mean. You have to gauge the conversation depending on how new the office is, House, Senate, are they minority side, and then what we try to do is bring the issues that the private sector is having while simultaneously hitting the issues that the federal agency space is. Usually, we'll have a needs list from the CSWEP at the different federal agencies for a particular topic like the Chinese APTs or the Russian APT. What we'll do is, we'll break down what the issue is. With Russia, for example, it's a combination of two types of exploits that are happening. You have the technical exploit, the malicious payload and vulnerability in a critical infrastructure network and then profiling those actors. We also have another problem, the influence operations, which is why we started the Center for Cyber Influence Operations Studies. We've been asked repeatedly since the elections last year by the intelligence community to tell us, explain this new propaganda. The interesting thing is the synergies between the two sides are exploiting and weaponizing the same vectors. While on the technical side, you're exploiting a vulnerability in a network with a technical exploit, with a payload, a compiled payload with a bunch of tools. On the influence operations side, they're weaponizing the same social media platforms that you would use to distribute a payload here but only the... >> Contest payload. Either way you have critical infrastructure. The payload being content, fake content or whatever content, has an underpinning that gamification call it virality, network effect and user psychology around they don't really open up the Facebook post, they just read the headline and picture. There's a dissonance campaign, or whatever they're running, that might not be critical to national security at that time but it's also a post. >> It shifts the conversation in a way where they can use, for example, right now all the rage with nation states is to use metadata, put it into big data analytics, come up with a psychographic algorithm, and go after critical infrastructure executives with elevated privileges. You can do anything with those guys. You can spearfish them. The Russian modus operandi is to call and act like a recruiter, have that first touch of contact be the phone call, which they're not expecting. "Hey, I got this job. "Keep it on the down low. Don't tell anybody. "I'm going to send you the job description. "Here's the PDF." Take it from there. >> How should we think about the different nation state actors? You mentioned Russia, China, there's Iran, North Korea. Lay it out for us. >> Each geography has a different vibe to their hacking. With Russia you have this stealth and sophistication and their hacking is just like their espionage. It's like playing chess. They're really good at making pawns feel like they're kings on the chessboard so they're really good at recruiting insider threats. Bill Evanina is the head of counterintel. He's a bulldog. I know him personally. He's exactly what we need in that position. The Chinese hacking style is more smash and grab, very unsophisticated. They'll use a payload over and over again so forensically, it's easy to... >> Dave: Signatures. >> Yeah, it is. >> More shearing on the tooling or whatever. >> They'll use code to the point of redundancy so it's like alright, the only reason they got in... Chinese get into a network, not because of sophistication, but because the network is not protected. Then you have the mercenary element which is where China really thrives. Chinese PLA will hack for the nation state during the day, but they'll moonlight at night to North Korea so North Korea, they have people who may consider themselves hackers but they're not code writers. They outsource. >> They're brokers, like general contractors. >> They're not sophisticated enough to carry out a real nation state attack. What they'll do is outsource to Chinese PLA members. Chinese PLA members will be like, "okay well, here's what I need for this job." Typically, what the Chinese will do, their loyalties are different than in the west, during the day they'll discover a vulnerability or an O day. They won't tell their boss right away. They'll capitalize off of it for a week. You do that, you go to jail over here. Russia, they'll kill you. China, somehow this is an accepted thing. They don't like it but it just happens. Then you have the eastern European nations and Russia still uses mercenary elements out of Moscow and St. Petersburg so what they'll do is they will freelance, as well. That's when you get the sophisticated, carbonic style hack where they'll go into the financial sector. They'll monitor the situation. Learn the ins and outs of everything having to do with that particular swift or bank or whatever. They go in and those are the guys that are making millions of dollars on a breach. Hacking in general is a grind. It's a lot of vulnerabilities work, but few work for long. Everybody is always thinking there's this omega code that they have. >> It's just brute force. You just pound it all day long. >> That's it and it's a grind. You might have something that you worked on for six months. You're ready to monetize. >> What about South America? What's the vibe down there? Anything happening in there? >> Not really. There is nothing of substance that really affects us here. Again, if an organization is completely unprotected. >> John: Russia? China? >> Russia and China. >> What about our allies? >> GCHQ. >> Israel? What's the collaboration, coordination, snooping? What's the dynamic like there? >> We deal, mostly, with NATO and Five Eyes. I actually had dinner with NATO last night. Five Eyes is important because we share signals intelligence and most of the communications will go through Five Eyes which is California, United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Those are our five most important allies and then NATO after that, as far as I'm concerned, for cyber. You have the whole weaponization of space going on with SATCOM interception. We're dealing with that with NASA, DARPA. Not a lot is happening down in South America. The next big thing that we have to look at is the cyber caliphate. You have the Muslim brotherhood that funds it. Their influence operations domestically are extremely strong. They have a lot of contacts on the Hill which is a problem. You have ANTIFA. So there's two sides to this. You have the technical exploit but then the information warfare exploit. >> What about the bitcoin underbelly that started with the silk roads and you've seen a lot of bitcoin. Money laundering is a big deal, know your customer. Now regulation is part of big ICOs going on. Are you seeing any activity from those? Are they pulling from previous mercenary groups or are they arbitraging just more free? >> For updating bitcoin? >> The whole bitcoin networks. There's been an effort to commercialize (mumbles) so there's been a legitimate track to bring that on but yet there's still a lot of actors. >> I think bitcoin is important to keep and if you look at the more black ops type hacking or payment stuff, bitcoin is an important element just as tor is an important element, just as encryption is an important element. >> John: It's fundamental, actually. >> It's a necessity so when I hear people on the Hill, I have my researcher, I'm like, "any time you hear somebody trying to have "weakened encryption, back door encryption" the first thing, we add them to the briefing schedule and I'm like, "look, here's what you're proposing. "You're proposing that you outlaw math. "So what? Two plus two doesn't equal four. "What is it? Three and a half? "Where's the logic?" When you break it down for them like that, on the Hill in particular, they begin to get it. They're like, "well how do we get the intelligence community "or the FBI, for example, to get into this iphone?" Civil liberties, you've got to take that into consideration. >> I got to ask you a question. I interviewed a guy, I won't say his name. He actually commented off the record, but he said to me, "you won't believe how dumb some of these state actors are "when it comes to cyber. "There's some super smart ones. "Specifically Iran and the Middle East, "they're really not that bright." He used an example, I don't know if it's true or not, that stuxnet, I forget which one it was, there was a test and it got out of control and they couldn't pull it back and it revealed their hand but it could've been something worse. His point was they actually screwed up their entire operation because they're doing some QA on their thing. >> I can't talk about stuxnet but it's easy to get... >> In terms of how you test them, how do you QA your work? >> James: How do you review malware? (mumbles) >> You can't comment on the accuracy of Zero Days, the documentary? >> Next question. Here's what you find. Some of these nation state actors, they saw what happened with our elections so they're like, "we have a really crappy offensive cyber program "but maybe we can thrive in influence operations "in propaganda and whatever." We're getting hit by everybody and 2020 is going to be, I don't even want to imagine. >> John: You think it's going to be out of control? >> It's going to be. >> I've got to ask this question, this came up. You're bringing up a really good point I think a lot of people aren't talking about but we've brought up a few times. I want to keep on getting it out there. In the old days, state on state actors used to do things, espionage, and everyone knew who they were and it was very important not to bring their queen out, if you will, too early, or reveal their moves. Now with Wikileaks and public domain, a lot of these tools are being democratized so that they can covertly put stuff out in the open for enemies of our country to just attack us at will. Is that happening? I hear about it, meaning that I might be Russia or I might be someone else. I don't want to reveal my hand but hey, you ISIS guys out there, all you guys in the Middle East might want to use this great hack and put it out in the open. >> I think yeah. The new world order, I guess. The order of things, the power positions are completely flipped, B side, counter, whatever. It's completely not what the establishment was thinking it would be. What's happening is Facebook is no more relevant, I mean Facebook is more relevant than the UN. Wikileaks has more information pulsating out of it than a CIA analyst, whatever. >> John: There's a democratization of the information? >> The thing is we're no longer a world that's divided by geographic lines in the sand that were drawn by these two guys that fought and lost a war 50 years ago. We're now in a tribal chieftain digital society and we're separated by ideological variation and so you have tribe members here in the US who have fellow tribe members in Israel, Russia, whatever. Look at Anonymous. Anonymous, I think everyone understands that's the biggest law enforcement honeypot there is, but you look at the ideological variation and it's hashtags and it's keywords and it's forums. That's the Senate. That's congress. >> John: This is a new reality. >> This is reality. >> How do you explain that to senators? I was watching that on TV where they're trying to grasp what Facebook is and Twitter. (mumbles) Certainly Facebook knew what was going on. They're trying to play policy and they're new. They're newbies when it comes to policy. They don't have any experience on the Hill, now it's ramping up and they've had some help but tech has never been an actor on the stage of policy formulation. >> We have a real problem. We're looking at outside threats as our national security threats, which is incorrect. You have dragnet surveillance capitalists. Here's the biggest threats we have. The weaponization of Facebook, twitter, youtube, google, and search engines like comcast. They all have a censorship algorithm, which is how they monetize your traffic. It's censorship. You're signing your rights away and your free will when you use google. You're not getting the right answer, you're getting the answer that coincides with an algorithm that they're meant to monetize and capitalize on. It's complete censorship. What's happening is, we had something that just passed SJ res 34 which no resistance whatsoever, blew my mind. What that allows is for a new actor, the ISPs to curate metadata on their users and charge them their monthly fee as well. It's completely corrupt. These dragnet surveillance capitalists have become dragnet surveillance censorists. Is that a word? Censorists? I'll make it one. Now they've become dragnet surveillance propagandists. That's why 2020 is up for grabs. >> (mumbles) We come from the same school here on this one, but here's the question. The younger generation, I asked a gentleman in the hallway on his way out, I said, "where's the cyber west point? "We're the Navy SEALS in this new digital culture." He said, "oh yeah, some things." We're talking about the younger generation, the kids playing Call of Duty Destiny. These are the guys out there, young kids coming up that will probably end up having multiple disciplinary skills. Where are they going to come from? So the question is, are we going to have a counterculture? We're almost feeling like what the 60s were to the 50s. Vietnam. I kind of feel like maybe the security stuff doesn't get taken care of, a revolt is coming. You talk about dragnet censorship. You're talking about the lack of control and privacy. I don't mind giving Facebook my data to connect with my friends and see my thanksgiving photos or whatever but now I don't want fake news jammed down my throat. Anti-Trump and Anti-Hillary spew. I didn't buy into that. I don't want that anymore. >> I think millennials, I have a 19 year old son, my researchers, they're right out of grad school. >> John: What's the profile like? >> They have no trust whatsoever in the government and they laugh at legislation. They don't care any more about having their face on their Facebook page and all their most intimate details of last night's date and tomorrow's date with two different, whatever. They just don't... They loathe the traditional way of things. You got to talk to General Alexander today. We have a really good relationship with him, Hayden, Mike Rogers. There is a counterculture in the works but it's not going to happen overnight because we have a tech deficit here where we need foreign tech people just to make up for the deficit. >> Bill Mann and I were talking, I heard the general basically, this is my interpretation, "if we don't get our shit together, "this is going to be an f'd up situation." That's what I heard him basically say. You guys don't come together so what Bill talked about was two scenarios. If industry and government don't share and come together, they're going to have stuff mandated on them by the government. Do you agree? >> I do. >> What's going to happen? >> The argument for regulation on the Hill is they don't want to stifle innovation, which makes sense but then ISPs don't innovate at all. They're using 1980s technology, so why did you pass SJ res 34? >> John: For access? >> I don't know because nation states just look at that as, "oh wow another treasure trove of metadata "that we can weaponize. "Let's start psychographically charging alt-left "and alt-right, you know what I mean?" >> Hacks are inevitable. That seems to be the trend. >> You talked before, James, about threats. You mentioned weaponization of social. >> James: Social media. >> You mentioned another in terms of ISPs I think. >> James: Dragnet. >> What are the big threats? Weaponization of social. ISP metadata, obviously. >> Metadata, it really depends and that's the thing. That's what makes the advisory so difficult because you have to go between influence operations and the exploit because the vectors are used for different things in different variations. >> John: Integrated model. >> It really is and so with a question like that I'm like okay so my biggest concern is the propaganda, political warfare, the information warfare. >> People are underestimating the value of how big that is, aren't they? They're oversimplifying the impact of info campaigns. >> Yeah because your reality is based off of... It's like this, influence operations. Traditional media, everybody is all about the narrative and controlling the narrative. What Russia understands is to control the narrative, the most embryo state of the narrative is the meme. Control the meme, control the idea. If you control the idea, you control the belief system. Control the belief system, you control the narrative. Control the narrative, you control the population. No guns were fired, see what I'm saying? >> I was explaining to a friend on Facebook, I was getting into a rant on this. I used a very simple example. In the advertising world, they run millions of dollars of ad campaigns on car companies for post car purchase cognitive dissonance campaigns. Just to make you feel good about your purchase. In a way, that's what's going on and explains what's going on on Facebook. This constant reinforcement of these beliefs whether its for Trump or Hillary, all this stuff was happening. I saw it firsthand. That's just one small nuance but it's across a spectrum of memes. >> You have all these people, you have nation states, you have mercenaries, but the most potent force in this space, the most hyperevolving in influence operations, is the special interest group. The well-funded special interests. That's going to be a problem. 2020, I keep hitting that because I was doing an interview earlier. 2020 is going to be a tug of war for the psychological core of the population and it's free game. Dragnet surveillance capitalists will absolutely be dragnet surveillance propagandists. They will have the candidates that they're going to push. Now that can also work against them because mainstream media, twitter, Facebook were completely against trump, for example, and that worked in his advantage. >> We've seen this before. I'm a little bit older, but we are the same generation. Remember when they were going to open up sealex? Remember the last mile for connectivity? That battle was won before it was even fought. What you're saying, if I get this right, the war and tug of war going on now is a big game. If it's not played in one now, this jerry rigging, gerrymandering of stuff could happen so when people wake up and realize what's happened the game has already been won. >> Yeah, your universe as you know it, your belief systems, what you hold to be true and self evident. Again, the embryo. If you look back to the embryo introduction of that concept, whatever concept it is, to your mind it came from somewhere else. There are very few things that you believe that you came up with yourself. The digital space expedites that process and that's dangerous because now it's being weaponized. >> Back to the, who fixes this. Who's the watchdog on this? These ideas you're talking about, some of them, you're like, "man that guy has lost it, he's crazy." Actually, I don't think you're crazy at all. I think it's right on. Is there a media outlet watching it? Who's reporting on it? What even can grasp what you're saying? What's going on in D.C.? Can you share that perspective? >> Yeah, the people that get this are the intelligence community, okay? The problem is the way we advise is I will go in with one of the silos in the NSA and explain what's happening and how to do it. They'll turn around their computer and say, "show me how to do it. "How do you do a multi vector campaign "with this meme and make it viral in 30 minutes." You have to be able to show them how to do it. >> John: We can do that. Actually we can't. >> That sort of thing, you have to be able to show them because there's not enough practitioners, we call them operators. When you're going in here, you're teaching them. >> The thing is if they have the metadata to your treasure trove, this is how they do it. I'll explain here. If they have the metadata, they know where the touch points are. It's a network effect mole, just distributive mole. They can put content in certain subnetworks that they know have a reaction to the metadata so they have the knowledge going in. It's not like they're scanning the whole world. They're monitoring pockets like a drone, right? Once they get over the territory, then they do the acquired deeper targets and then go viral. That's basically how fake news works. >> See the problem is, you look at something like alt-right and ANTIFA. ANTIFA, just like Black Lives Matter, the initiatives may have started out with righteous intentions just like take a knee. These initiatives, first stage is if it causes chaos, chaos is the op for a nation state in the US. That's the op. Chaos. That's the beginning and the end of an op. What happens is they will say, "oh okay look, this is ticking off all these other people "so let's fan the flame of this take a knee thing "hurt the NFL." Who cares? I don't watch football anyway but you know, take a knee. It's causing all this chaos. >> John: It's called trolling. >> What will happen is Russia and China, China has got their 13 five year plan, Russia has their foreign influence operations. They will fan that flame to exhaustion. Now what happens to the ANTIFA guy when he's a self-radicalized wound collector with a mental disorder? Maybe he's bipolar. Now with ANTIFA, he's experienced a heightened more extreme variation of that particular ideology so who steps in next? Cyber caliphate and Muslim brotherhood. That's why we're going to have an epidemic. I can't believe, you know, ANTIFA is a domestic terrorist organization. It's shocking that the FBI is not taking this more serious. What's happening now is Muslim brotherhood funds basically the cyber caliphate. The whole point of cyber caliphate is to create awareness, instill the illusion of rampant xenophobia for recruiting. They have self-radicalized wound collectors with ANTIFA that are already extremists anyway. They're just looking for a reason to take that up a notch. That's when, cyber caliphate, they hook up with them with a hashtag. They respond and they create a relationship. >> John: They get the fly wheel going. >> They take them to a deep web forum, dark web forum, and start showing them how it works. You can do this. You can be part of something. This guy who was never even muslim now is going under the ISIS moniker and he acts. He drives people over in New York. >> They fossilized their belief system. >> The whole point to the cyber caliphate is to find actors that are already in the self-radicalization phase but what does it take psychologically and from a mentoring perspective, to get them to act? That's the cyber caliphate. >> This is the value of data and context in real time using the current events to use that data, refuel their operation. It's data driven terrorism. >> What's the prescription that you're advising? >> I'm not a regulations kind of guy, but any time you're curating metadata like we're just talking about right now. Any time you have organizations like google, like Facebook, that have become so big, they are like their own nation state. That's a dangerous thing. The metadata curation. >> John: The value of the data is very big. That's the point. >> It is because what's happening... >> John: There's always a vulnerability. >> There's always a vulnerability and it will be exploited and all that metadata, it's unscrubbed. I'm not worried about them selling metadata that's scrubbed. I'm worried about the nation state or the sophisticated actor that already has a remote access Trojan on the network and is exfiltrating in real time. That's the guy that I'm worried about because he can just say, "forget it, I'm going to target people that are at this phase." He knows how to write algorithms, comes up with a good psychographic algorithm, puts the data in there, and now he's like, "look I'm only going to promote this concept, "two people at this particular stage of self-radicalization "or sympathetic to the kremlin." We have a big problem on the college campuses with IP theft because of the Chinese Students Scholar Associations which are directly run by the Chinese communist party. >> I heard a rumor that Equifax's franchising strategy had partners on the VPN that were state sponsored. They weren't even hacking, they had full access. >> There's a reason that the Chinese are buying hotels. They bought the Waldorf Astoria. We do stuff with the UN and NATO, you can't even stay there anymore. I think it's still under construction but it's a no-no to stay there anymore. I mean western nations and allies because they'll have bugs in the rooms. The WiFi that you use... >> Has fake certificates. >> Or there's a vulnerability that's left in that network so the information for executives who have IP or PII or electronic health records, you know what I mean? You go to these places to stay overnight, as an executive, and you're compromised. >> Look what happened with Eugene Kaspersky. I don't know the real story. I don't know if you can comment, but someone sees that and says, "this guy used to have high level meetings "at the Pentagon weekly, monthly." Now he's persona non grata. >> He fell out of favor, I guess, right? It happens. >> James, great conversation. Thanks for coming on the Cube. Congratulations on the great work you guys are doing here at the event. I know the content has been well received. Certainly the key notes we saw were awesome. CSOs, view from the government, from industry, congratulations. James Scott who is the co founder and senior fellow of ICIT, Internet Critical Infrastructure Technology. >> James: Institute of Critical Infrastructure Technology. >> T is for tech. >> And the Center for Cyber Influence Operations Studies. >> Good stuff. A lot of stuff going on (mumbles), exploits, infrastructure, it's all mainstream. It's the crisis of our generation. There's a radical shift happening and the answers are all going to come from industry and government coming together. This is the Cube bringing the data, I'm John Furrier with Dave Vellante. Thanks for watching. More live coverage after this short break. (music)

>> From Boston, Massachusetts, it's the cube. covering LiveWorx 18, brought to you by PTC. (upbeat music) >> Welcome back to the Boston Seaport everybody. My name is David Vellante, I'm here with my co-host Stu Miniman and you're watching the cube, the leader in live tech coverage. We're at LiveWorx PTC's big IOT conference. Jaron Lanier is here, he's the father of virtual reality and the author of Dawn of the New Everything. Papa, welcome. >> Hey there. >> What's going on? >> Hey, how's it going? >> It's going great. How's the show going for you? It's cool, it's cool. It's, it's fine. I'm actually here talking about this other book a little bit too, but, yeah, I've been having a lot of fun. It's fun to see how hollow lens applied to a engines and factories. It's been really cool to see people seeing the demos. Mixed reality. >> Well, your progeny is being invoked a lot at the show. Everybody's sort of talking about VR and applying it and it's got to feel pretty good. >> Yeah, yeah. It seems like a VR IoT blockchain are the sort of the three things. >> Wrap it all with digital transformation. >> Yeah, digital transformation, right. So what we need is a blockchain VR IoT solution to transform something somewhere. Yeah. >> So tell us about this new book, what it's called? >> Yeah. This is called the deleting all your social media accounts right now. And I, I realize most people aren't going to do it, but what I'm trying to do is raise awareness of how the a psychological manipulation algorithms behind the system we're having an effect on society and I think I love the industry but I think we can do better and so I'm kind of agitating a bit here. >> Well Jaron, I was reading up a little bit getting ready for the interview here and people often will attack the big companies, but you point at the user as, you know, we need to kind of take back and we have some onus ourselves as to what we use, how we use it and therefore can have impact on, on that. >> Well, you know, what I've been finding is that within the companies and Silicon Valley, a lot of the top engineering talent really, really wants to pursue ethical solutions to the problem, but feels like our underlying business plan, the advertising business plan keeps on pulling us back because we keep on telling advertisers we have yet new ways to kind of do something to tweak the behaviors of users and it kind of gradually pulls us into this darker and darker territory. The thing is, there's always this assumption, oh, it's what users want. They would never pay for something the way they pay for Netflix, they would never pay for social media that way or whatever it is. The thing is, we've never asked users, nobody's ever gone and really checked this out. So I'm going to, I'm kind of putting out there as a proposition and I think in the event that users turn out to really want more ethical social media and other services by paying for them, you know, I think it's going to create this enormous sigh of relief in the tech world. I think it's what we all really want. >> Well, I mean ad-based business models that there's a clear incentive to keep taking our data and doing whatever you want with it, but, but perhaps there's a better way. I mean, what if you're, you're sort of proposing, okay, maybe users would be willing to pay for various services, which is probably true, but what if you were able to give users back control of their data and let them monetize their data. What are your thoughts on that? >> Yeah, you know, I like a lot of different solutions, like personally, if it were just up to me, if I ran the world, which I don't, but if I ran the world, I can make every single person of the world into a micro-entrepreneur where they can package, sell and price their data the way they want. They can, they can form into associations with others to do it. And they can also purchase data from others as they want. And I think what we'd see is this flowering of this giant global marketplace that would organize itself and would actually create wonders. I really believe that however, I don't run the world and I don't think we're going to see that kind of perfect solution. I think we're going to see something that's a bit rougher. I think we might see something approximating that are getting like a few steps towards that, but I think we are going to move away from this thing where like right now if two people want to do anything on online together, the only way that's possible is if there's somebody else who's around to pay them, manipulate them sneakily and that's stupid. I mean we can be better than that and I'm sure we will. >> Yeah, I'm sure we will too. I mean we think, we think blockchain and smart contracts are a part of that solution and obviously a platform that allows people to do exactly what you just described. >> And, and you know, it's funny, a lot of things that sounded radical a few years ago are really not sounding too radical. Like you mentioned smart contracts. I remember like 10 years ago for sure, but even five years ago when you talked about this, people are saying, oh no, no, no, no, no, this, the world is too conservative. Nobody's ever going to want to do this. And the truth is people are realizing that if it makes sense, you know, it makes sense. And, and, and, and so I think, I think we're really seeing like the possibilities opening up. We're seeing a lot of minds opening, so it's kind of an exciting time. >> Well, something else that I'd love to get your thoughts on and we think a part of that equation is also reputation that if you, if you develop some kind of reputation system that is based on the value that you contribute to the community, that affects your, your reputation and you can charge more if you have a higher reputation or you get dinged if you're promoting fake news. That that reputation is a linchpin to the successful community like that. >> Well, right now the problem is because, in the free model, there's this incredible incentive to just sort of get people to do things instead of normal capitalist. And when you say buy my thing, it's like you don't have to buy anything, but I'm going to try to trick you into doing something, whatever it is. And, and, and if you ever direct commercial relationship, then the person who's paying the money starts to be a little more demanding. And the reason I'm bringing that up is that right now there's this huge incentive to create false reputation. Like in reviews, a lot of, a lot of the reviews are fake, followers a lot of them are fake instance. And so there's like this giant world of fake stuff. So the thing is right now we don't have reputation, we have fake reputation and the way to get real reputation instead of think reputation is not to hire an army of enforcing us to go around because the company is already doing that is to change the financial incentives so you're not incentivizing criminals, you know I mean, that's incentives come first and then you can do the mop up after that, but you have to get the incentives aligned with what you want. >> You're here, and I love the title of the book. We interviewed James Scott and if you know James Scott, he's one of the principals at ICIT down PTC we interviewed him last fall and we asked him, he's a security expert and we asked them what's the number one risk to our country? And he said, the weaponization of social media. Now this is, this is before fake news came out and he said 2020 is going to be a, you know, what show and so, okay. >> Yeah, you know, and I want to say there's a danger that people think this is a partisan thing. Like, you know, if you, it's not about that. It's like even if you happen to support whoever has been on, on the good side of social media manipulation, you should still oppose the manipulation. You know, like I was, I was just in the UK yesterday and they had the Brexit foot where there was manipulation by Russians and others. And you know, the point I've made over there is that it's not about whether you support Brexit or not. That's your business, I don't even have an opinion. It's not, I'm an American. That's something that's for somebody else. But the thing is, if you look at the way Brexit happened, it tore society apart. It was nasty, it was ugly, and there have been tough elections before, but now they're all like that. And there was a similar question when the, the Czechoslovakia broke apart and they didn't have all the nastiness and it's because it was before social media that was called the velvet divorce. So the thing is, it's not so much about what's being supported, whatever you think about Donald Trump or anything else, it's the nastiness. It's the way that people's worst instincts are being used to manipulate them, that's the problem. >> Yeah, manipulation denial is definitely a problem no matter what side of the aisle you're on, but I think you're right that the economic incentive if the economic incentive is there, it will change behavior. And frankly, without it, I'm not sure it will. >> Well, you know, in the past we've tried to change the way things in the world by running around in outlying things. For instance, we had prohibition, we outlawed, we outlawed alcohol, and what we did is we created this underground criminal economy and we're doing something similar now. What we're trying to do is we're saying we have incentives for everything to be fake, everything to be phony for everything to be about manipulation and we're creating this giant underground of people trying to manipulate search results or trying to manipulate social media feeds and these people are getting more and more sophisticated. And if we keep on doing this, we're going to have criminals running the world. >> Wonder if I could bring the conversation back to the virtual reality. >> Absolutely. >> I'm sorry about that. >> So, but you know, you have some concerns about whether virtual reality will be something you for good or if it could send us off the deep end. >> Oh yeah, well. Look, there's a lot to say about virtual reality. It's a whole world after all. So you can, there is a danger that if the same kinds of games are being played on smartphones these days were transferred into a virtual reality or mixed reality modalities. Like, you could really have a poisonous level of mind control and I, I do worry about that I've worried about that for years. What I'm hoping is that the smartphone era is going to force us to fix our ways and get the whole system working well enough so that by the time technologies like virtual reality are more common, we'll have a functional way to do things. And it won't, it won't all be turned into garbage, you know because I do worry about it. >> I heard, I heard a positive segment on NPR saying that one of the problems is we all stare at our phones and maybe when I have VR I'll actually be talking to actual people so we'll actually help connections and I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that. >> Well, you know, most of the mixed reality demos you see these days are person looking at the physical world and then there's extra stuff added to the physical world. For instance, in this event, just off camera over there, there's some people looking at automobile engines and seeing them augmented and, and that's great. But, there's this other thing you can do which is augmenting people and sometimes it can be fun. You can put horns or wings or long noses or something on people. Of course, you still see them with the headsets all that's great. But you can also do other stuff. You can, you can have people display extra information that they have in their mind. You can have more sense of what each other are thinking and feeling. And I actually think as a tool of expression between people in real life, it's going to become extremely creative and interesting. >> Well, I mean, we're seeing a lot of applications here. What are some of your favorites? >> Oh Gosh. Of the ones right here? >> Yes. >> Well, you know, the ones right here are the ones I described and I really like them, there's a really cool one of some people getting augmentation to help them maintain and repair factory equipment. And it's, it's clear, it's effective, it's sensible. And that's what you want, right? If you ask me personally what really, a lot of the stuff my students have done, really charms me like up, there was just one project, a student intern made where you can throw virtual like goop like paint and stuff around in the walls and it sticks and starts running down and this is running on the real world and you can spray paint the real world so you can be a bit of a juvenile delinquent basically without actually damaging anything. And it was great, it was really fun and you know, stuff like that. There was this other thing and other student did where you can fill a whole room with these representations of mathematical objects called tensors and I'm sorry to geek out, but you had this kid where all these people could work together, manipulating tensors and the social environment. And it was like math coming alive in this way I hadn't experienced before. That really was kind of thrilling. And I also love using virtual reality to make music that's another one of my favorite things, >> Talk more about that. >> Well, this is something I've been doing forever since the '80s, since the '80s. I've been, I've been at this for awhile, but you can make an imaginary instruments and play them with your hands and you can do all kinds of crazy things. I've done a lot of stuff with like, oh I made this thing that was halfway between the saxophone and an octopus once and I'll just >> Okay. >> all this crazy. I love that stuff I still love it. (mumbling) It hasn't gotten old for me. I still love it as much as I used to. >> So I love, you mentioned before we came on camera that you worked on minority report and you made a comment that there were things in that that just won't work and I wonder if you could explain a little bit more, you know, because I have to imagine there's a lot of things that you talked about in the eighties that, you know, we didn't think what happened that probably are happening. Well, I mean minority report was only one of a lot of examples of people who were thinking about technology in past decades. Trying to send warnings to the future saying, you know, like if you try to make a society where their algorithms predicting what'll happen, you'll have a dystopia, you know, and that's essentially what that film is about. It uses sort of biocomputer. They're the sort of bioengineered brains in these weird creatures instead of silicon computers doing the predicting. But then, so there are a lot of different things we could talk about minority report, but in the old days one of the famous VR devices which these gloves that you'd use to manipulate virtual objects. And so, I put a glove in a scene mockup idea which ended up and I didn't design the final production glove that was done by somebody in Montreal, but the idea of putting a glove a on the heroes hand there was that glove interfaces give you arm fatigue. So the truth is if you look at those scenes there physically impossible and what we were hoping to do is to convey that this is a world that has all this power, but it's actually not. It's not designed for people. It actually wouldn't work in. Of course it kind of backfired because what happened is the production designers made these very gorgeous things and so now every but every year somebody else tries to make the minority report interface and then you discover oh my God, this doesn't work, you know, but the whole point was to indicate a dystopian world with UI and that didn't quite work and there are many other examples I could give you from the movie that have that quality. >> So you just finished the book. When did this, this, this go to print the. >> Yeah, so this book is just barely out. It's fresh from the printer. In fact, I have this one because I noticed a printing flaw. I'm going to call the publisher and say, Oh, you got to talk to the printer about this, but this is brand new. What happened was last year I wrote a kind of a big book of advert triality that's for real aficionados and it's called Dawn of the new everything and then when I would go and talk to the media about it they'd say, well yeah, but what about social media? And then all this stuff, and this was before it Cambridge Analytica, but people were still interested. So I thought, okay, I'll do a little quick book that addresses what I think about all that stuff. And so I wrote this thing last year and then Cambridge Analytica happened and all of a sudden it's, it seems a little bit more, you know, well timed >> than I could have imagined >> Relevant. So, what other cool stuff are you working on? >> I have to tell you something >> Go ahead. >> This is a real cat. This is a black cat who is rescued from a parking lot in Oakland, California and belongs to my daughter. And he's a very sweet cat named Potato. >> Awesome. You, you're based in Northern California? >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> Awesome And he was, he was, he was an extra on the set of, of the Black Panther movie. He was a stand-in for like a little mini black panthers. >> What other cool stuff are you working on? What's next for you? >> Oh my God, there's so much going on. I hardly even know where to begin. There's. Well, one of the things I'm really interested in is there's a certain type of algorithm that's really transforming the world, which is usually called machine learning. And I'm really interested in making these things more transparent and open so it's less like a black box. >> Interesting. Because this has been something that's been bugging me you know, most kinds of programming. It might be difficult programming, but at least the general concept of how it works is obvious to anyone who's program and more and more we send our kids to coding camps and there's just a general societal, societal awareness of what conventional programming is like. But machine learning has still been this black box and I view that as a danger. Like you can't have society run by something that most people feel. It's like this black box because it'll, it'll create a sense of distrust and, and, I think could be, you know, potentially quite a problem. So what I want to try to do is open the black box and make it clear to people. So that's one thing I'm really interested in right now and I'm, oh, well, there's a bunch of other stuff. I, I hardly even know where to begin. >> The black box problem is in, in machine intelligence is a big one. I mean, I, I always use the example I can explain, I can describe to you how I know that's a dog, but I really can't tell you how I really know it's a dog. I know I look at a dog that's a dog, but. Well, but, I can't really in detail tell you how I did that but it isn't AI kind of the same way. A lot of AI. >> Well, not really. There's, it's a funny thing right now in, in, in the tech world, there are certain individuals who happen to be really good at getting machine language to work and they get very, very well paid. They're sort of like star athletes. But the thing is even so there's a degree of almost like folk art to it where we're not exactly sure why some people are good at it But even having said that, we, it's wrong to say that we have no idea how these things work or what we can certainly describe what the difference is between one that fails and that's at least pretty good, you know? And so I think any ordinary person, if we can improve the user interface and improve the way it's taught any, any normal person that can learn even a tiny bit of programming like at a coding camp, making the turtle move around or something, we should be able to get to the point where they can understand basic machine learning as well. And we have to get there. All right in the future, I don't want it to be a black box. It doesn't need to be. >> Well basic machine learning is one thing, but how the machine made that decision is increasingly complex. Right? >> Not really it's not a matter of complexity. It's a funny thing. It's not exactly complexity. It has to do with getting a bunch of data from real people and then I'm massaging it and coming up with the right transformation so that the right thing spit out on the other side. And there's like a little, it's like to me it's a little bit more, it's almost like, I know this is going to sound strange but it's, it's almost like learning to dress like you take this data and then you dress it up in different ways and all of a sudden it turns functional in a certain way. Like if you get a bunch of people to tag, that's a cat, that's a dog. Now you have this big corpus of cats and dogs and now you want to tell them apart. You start playing with these different ways of working with it. That had been worked out. Maybe in other situations, you might have to tweak it a little bit, but you can get it to where it's very good. It can even be better than any individual person, although it's always based on the discrimination that people put into the system in the first place. In a funny way, it's like Yeah, it's like, it's like a cross between a democracy and a puppet show or something. Because what's happening is you're taking this data and just kind of transforming it until you find the right transformation that lets you get the right feedback loop with the original thing, but it's always based on human discrimination in the first place so it's not. It's not really cognition from first principles, it's kind of leveraging data, gotten from people and finding out the best way to do that and I think really, really work with it. You can start to get a two to feel for it. >> We're looking forward to seeing your results of that work Jared, thanks for coming on the cube. You're great guests. >> Really appreciate it >> I really appreciate you having me here. Good. Good luck to all of you. And hello out there in the land that those who are manipulated. >> Thanks again. The book last one, one last plug if I may. >> The book is 10 arguments for deleting your social media accounts right now and you might be watching this on one of them, so I'm about to disappear from your life if you take my advice. >> All right, thanks again. >> All right. Okay, keep it right there everybody. We'll be back with our next guest right after this short break. You're watching the cube from LiveWorx in Boston. We'll be right back. (upbeat music)

>> Announcer: Live from Chicago, Illinois, it's the Cube covering VeeamON 2018. Brought to you by Veeam. >> Welcome back to Chicago, everybody. This is the Cube, the leader in live tech coverage, and you're watching our exclusive coverage of VEEAMON 2018. #VeeamON. My name is Dave Vallante and I'm here with my cohost Stuart Miniman. Stu, great to be working with you again. >> Thanks Dave. Admiral, David G. Simpson is here. He's a former Chief Public Safety and homeland Security Bureau and CEO, currently, of Pelorus, a consultancy that helps organizations think through some of the risk factors that they face. David, welcome to the Cube. Thanks so much for taking time out. >> It's my pleasure to be here. >> So, as I was saying, we, we missed a big chunk of your keynote this morning cause we had to come back to the cube and do our open, but let's start with your background and kind of why you're here. >> Sure, well, I spent over three decades in the Navy where my responsibilities throughout included the resiliency of the ability to command and control forces in areas around the world not always so nice and often arduous and often at sea. So, that experience really has given me a very good appreciation, not only for how important economy of operations is, but how difficult it can be and how important the details are, so I am a natural fan of what FEMA's doing to make that easier for organizations. After DOD, I was recruited by the chairman of the FCC to lead the Public Safety Homeland Security Bureau for the Federal Communications Commission. And, in that position, I have responsibility for the nation's climate one system, emergency alerting, and the resiliency of over 30,000 telecommunication companies in the domestic market, so both experiences really have given me a very good insight into the need, the consequence of not getting it right, how to prepare to get it right, but also an ability to look at what's coming down the pike with the new telecommunications technologies that will really be game changers for functionality in the new internet of things environment. >> So, three decades of public service. First of all, thank you. >> Thank you. It's quite an accomplishment. And then, we had talked off camera that we, a couple of years ago, had Robert Gates on and we were gettin' detailed into how the experience that someone like you has had in the public sector translated to the private sector. It used to be there was just such a huge gap between, you know, what you did and what a, what a company had to, had to worry about. Do you see that gap closing? And, maybe, you could add some color to that. >> Sure, and in particular, in the cyber arena, you know, cyber, unlike the land, sea, and air domains, is a domain of Man's own making and the constraints around that domain are of our own choosing. And, we're not constrained by physics, we're constrained by the investment decisions we make and the contours of that expanding environment. But, the internet started out as a DOD research and development project, ARPA, so it has not been unusual for DOD to be out in front in some of the development aspects where counterintuitively we would, normally, see industry out in front. The same occurred I believe with cyber when our intelligence community over 10 years ago said, hey, this is a great thing, this internet thing. And, it's super that we're doing more and more communications, that we're talking with devices at the edge around the battle space, but it's vulnerable to attack and we need to organize, so that we are capable in the defense of that great cyber set of functionality that we've built. >> Could you expand? Just, so, you're doing some teaching in the cyber security world too. Maybe you could share a little bit what you're doing and what you see as kind of the state of this today >> Yeah, well, thank you for asking that about a year ago, the dean of the business school of Virginia Tech, asked me if I wouldn't consider building a cyber program for the business school. Tech has always had a strong engineering component to cyber security and it's led by a good friend of mine Dr. Charles Clancy with some superb research going on, but, increasingly, over two thirds of the work roles, in cyber security are not engineering. They really have much more to do with traditional business functions. Yet, most business leaders aren't well prepared to assess that risk environment, let alone appreciate it, and then, drive investments to address risk reduction. So, at Virginia Tech, we've built a series of four courses that in the MBA programs, the Masters of Accounting, the Masters of Business IT, we are now teaching prospective business leaders how to look at the risk environment and organize an investment structure using the NIST, or National Institute of the Standards of Technology, risk management framework, so that can be done in a repeatable way that communicates well with industry. And, companies like Veeam have an important role to play in that space because Veeam really translates much of the engineering complexities into business understandable conditions by which decisions about that data space can really be made. >> I want to share an observation that we had on the Cube last year, one of my favorite interviews was with a gentleman from ICIT, James Scott. He's a security expert, you may know him. And, we asked him what the biggest threat was to United States and his answer surprised me. I thought it was going to be, you know, cyber warfare or risks to critical infrastructure, he said the weaponization of social media was the number one threat, like wow. And, we had a really interesting discussion about that and, you know, I think of, you know, your background, loose lips sink ships, people on social give up there credentials, all of a sudden, you've got some outside bad actors controlling the narrative, controlling the meme and controlling the population without firing a shot. Wow, so what are your thoughts on social media and it's risk to our society and how to deal with it? >> Well, we're seeing in the last year, that he's very prescient, right, in that you can lockdown all the bits and the bytes and get the integrity, the confidentiality, and the availability of your data sets taken care of, but in a world where the public square, if you will, is now a virtual public square, if an adversary can change the perception of reality in that public square, or if they can cause our democracy to lose confidence in that public square, then an adversary can really achieve a kill, if you will, a desired effect in a way that is very negative for the country, so I don't see that though as being completely distinguished from cyber security. I see, in my mind, that we need to expand the universe, to protect the universe of cyber into that cognitive space. And, we need to understand, increasingly, the origin of comment in the social media arena. We need to understand therole algorithms have to play in amplifying a message and suppressing other messages. And, we need to, I think, have a greater accountability for businesses that are in that virtual public square line of business to help consumers and communities continue to have confidence in that public square and we're, we're challenged in that area. 'cause see Mark Zuckerberg's testimony, right >> Sure. >> Illuminated some big challenges there. >> Yeah, I mean, my heart went out to Zuckerberg, it was, I was like the poor guy, he's just trying to build out a social network and now he's getting, you know, attacked by politicians who are saying, wow you mean you use data for political gain, or you allowed somebody to do it. >> He was in a tough spot. >> And politicians themselves, I think, were a bit embarrassed in revealing their lack of tech savvy in a world where we should expect policy makers to be at least aware enough of the parameters around the virtual public square where they can help develop the right policy to ensure that this continues to be a net asset for the United States, for communities, and for consumers. >> Technology kind of got us into this problem, but, technology, in and of itself, is not going to get out of, get us out of this problem >> Right. >> It's others in the organization, the lines of business, the policies, the practices, some of the work that you do in your teachings, may be >> Yeah, absolutely and when I talk to aspiring business leaders, I communicate a couple of things to them. One, they need to get their heads out of being the decider as the CEO. Increasingly, they will be creating decision environments, right, where decision operations occur and are driven by algorithms, by machine learning, and AI, and so they've got to be thinking, about how do they create those environments to deliver the right kind of decision results that they're looking for. The second piece that I talk to them about, that's counterintuitive, is that they need to, as they bring in network functional virtualization and more and more software oriented things that used to be hardware, they've got to understand the risk exposure from that and bring in, they can, a way to address cyber risk as they introduce new functionality in the market. >> Well, it's interesting of an Admiral talking about network function virtualization, I'm very impressed. Admiral Simpson, thanks very much for coming on the Cube. >> Sure. >> Really a pleasure having you and best of luck in your work. >> Well, thank you and it's great to be here with the Veeam professionals that, I think, are really building a command and control layer of an enterprise of data space that will be very important for the future. >> Alright, okay, thanks for watching everybody. We will be right back, Stu Miniman and Dave Vallante from VeeamOn 2018, you're watching the Cube. >> Great thanks. (upbeat music)

>> Narrator: Live from New York, it's theCUBE. Covering machine learning everywhere. Build your ladder to AI. Brought to you by IBM. >> Welcome back to IBM's Machine Learning Everywhere. Build your ladder to AI, along with Dave Vellante, John Walls here, wrapping up here in New York City. Just about done with the programming here in Midtown. Dave, let's just take a step back. We've heard a lot, seen a lot, talked to a lot of folks today. First off, tell me, AI. We've heard some optimistic outlooks, some, I wouldn't say pessimistic, but some folks saying, "Eh, hold off." Not as daunting as some might think. So just your take on the artificial intelligence conversation we've heard so far today. >> I think generally, John, that people don't realize what's coming. I think the industry, in general, our industry, technology industry, the consumers of technology, the businesses that are out there, they're steeped in the past, that's what they know. They know what they've done, they know the history and they're looking at that as past equals prologue. Everybody knows that's not the case, but I think it's hard for people to envision what's coming, and what the potential of AI is. Having said that, Jennifer Shin is a near-term pessimist on the potential for AI, and rightly so. There are a lot of implementation challenges. But as we said at the open, I'm very convinced that we are now entering a new era. The Hadoop big data industry is going to pale in comparison to what we're seeing. And we're already seeing very clear glimpses of it. The obvious things are Airbnb and Uber, and the disruptions that are going on with Netflix and over-the-top programming, and how Google has changed advertising, and how Amazon is changing and has changed retail. But what you can see, and again, the best examples are Apple getting into financial services, moving into healthcare, trying to solve that problem. Amazon buying a grocer. The rumor that I heard about Amazon potentially buying Nordstrom, which my wife said is a horrible idea. (John laughs) But think about the fact that they can do that is a function of, that they are a digital-first company. Are built around data, and they can take those data models and they can apply it to different places. Who would have thought, for example, that Alexa would be so successful? That Siri is not so great? >> Alexa's become our best friend. >> And it came out of the blue. And it seems like Google has a pretty competitive piece there, but I can almost guarantee that doing this with our thumbs is not the way in which we're going to communicate in the future. It's going to be some kind of natural language interface that's going to rely on artificial intelligence and machine learning and the like. And so, I think it's hard for people to envision what's coming, other than fast forward where machines take over the world and Stephen Hawking and Elon Musk say, "Hey, we should be concerned." Maybe they're right, not in the next 10 years. >> You mentioned Jennifer, we were talking about her and the influencer panel, and we've heard from others as well, it's a combination of human intelligence and artificial intelligence. That combination's more powerful than just artificial intelligence, and so, there is a human component to this. So, for those who might be on the edge of their seat a little bit, or looking at this from a slightly more concerning perspective, maybe not the case. Maybe not necessary, is what you're thinking. >> I guess at the end of the day, the question is, "Is the world going to be a better place with all this AI? "Are we going to be more prosperous, more productive, "healthier, safer on the roads?" I am an optimist, I come down on the side of yes. I would not want to go back to the days where I didn't have GPS. That's worth it to me. >> Can you imagine, right? If you did that now, you go back five years, just five years from where we are now, back to where we were. Waze was nowhere, right? >> All the downside of these things, I feel is offset by that. And I do think it's incumbent upon the industry to try to deal with the problem, especially with young people, the blue light problem. >> John: The addictive issue. >> That's right. But I feel like those downsides are manageable, and the upsides are of enough value that society is going to continue to move forward. And I do think that humans and machines are going to continue to coexist, at least in the near- to mid- reasonable long-term. But the question is, "What can machines "do that humans can't do?" And "What can humans do that machines can't do?" And the answer to that changes every year. It's like I said earlier, not too long ago, machines couldn't climb stairs. They can now, robots can climb stairs. Can they negotiate? Can they identify cats? Who would've imagined that all these cats on the Internet would've led to facial recognition technology. It's improving very, very rapidly. So, I guess my point is that that is changing very rapidly, and there's no question it's going to have an impact on society and an impact on jobs, and all those other negative things that people talk about. To me, the key is, how do we embrace that and turn it into an opportunity? And it's about education, it's about creativity, it's about having multi-talented disciplines that you can tap. So we talked about this earlier, not just being an expert in marketing, but being an expert in marketing with digital as an understanding in your toolbox. So it's that two-tool star that I think is going to emerge. And maybe it's more than two tools. So that's how I see it shaping up. And the last thing is disruption, we talked a lot about disruption. I don't think there's any industry that's safe. Colin was saying, "Well, certain industries "that are highly regulated-" In some respects, I can see those taking longer. But I see those as the most ripe for disruption. Financial services, healthcare. Can't we solve the HIPAA challenge? We can't get access to our own healthcare information. Well, things like artificial intelligence and blockchain, we were talking off-camera about blockchain, those things, I think, can help solve the challenge of, maybe I can carry around my health profile, my medical records. I don't have access to them, it's hard to get them. So can things like artificial intelligence improve our lives? I think there's no question about it. >> What about, on the other side of the coin, if you will, the misuse concerns? There are a lot of great applications. There are a lot of great services. As you pointed out, a lot of positive, a lot of upside here. But as opportunities become available and technology develops, that you run the risk of somebody crossing the line for nefarious means. And there's a lot more at stake now because there's a lot more of us out there, if you will. So, how do you balance that? >> There's no question that's going to happen. And it has to be managed. But even if you could stop it, I would say you shouldn't because the benefits are going to outweigh the risks. And again, the question we asked the panelists, "How far can we take machines? "How far can we go?" That's question number one, number two is, "How far should we go?" We're not even close to the "should we go" yet. We're still on the, "How far can we go?" Jennifer was pointing out, I can't get my password reset 'cause I got to call somebody. That problem will be solved. >> So, you're saying it's more of a practical consideration now than an ethical one, right now? >> Right now. Moreso, and there's certainly still ethical considerations, don't get me wrong, but I see light at the end of the privacy tunnel, I see artificial intelligence as, well, analytics is helping us solve credit card fraud and things of that nature. Autonomous vehicles are just fascinating, right? Both culturally, we talked about that, you know, we learned how to drive a stick shift. (both laugh) It's a funny story you told me. >> Not going to worry about that anymore, right? >> But it was an exciting time in our lives, so there's a cultural downside of that. I don't know what the highway death toll number is, but it's enormous. If cell phones caused that many deaths, we wouldn't be using them. So that's a problem that I think things like artificial intelligence and machine intelligence can solve. And then the other big thing that we talked about is, I see a huge gap between traditional companies and these born-in-the-cloud, born-data-oriented companies. We talked about the top five companies by market cap. Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook, Alphabet, which is Google, who am I missing? >> John: Apple. >> Apple, right. And those are pretty much very much data companies. Apple's got the data from the phones, Google, we know where they get their data, et cetera, et cetera. Traditional companies, however, their data resides in silos. Jennifer talked about this, Craig, as well as Colin. Data resides in silos, it's hard to get to. It's a very human-driven business and the data is bolted on. With the companies that we just talked about, it's a data-driven business, and the humans have expertise to exploit that data, which is very important. So there's a giant skills gap in existing companies. There's data silos. The other thing we touched on this is, where does innovation come from? Innovation drives value drives disruption. So the innovation comes from data. He or she who has the best data wins. It comes from artificial intelligence, and the ability to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning. And I think something that we take for granted a lot, but it's cloud economics. And it's more than just, and somebody, one of the folks mentioned this on the interview, it's more than just putting stuff in the cloud. It's certainly managed services, that's part of it. But it's also economies of scale. It's marginal economics that are essentially zero. It's speed, it's low latency. It's, and again, global scale. You combine those things, data, artificial intelligence, and cloud economics, that's where the innovation is going to come from. And if you think about what Uber's done, what Airbnb have done, where Waze came from, they were picking and choosing from the best digital services out there, and then developing their own software from this, what I say my colleague Dave Misheloff calls this matrix. And, just to repeat, that matrix is, the vertical matrix is industries. The horizontal matrix are technology platforms, cloud, data, mobile, social, security, et cetera. They're building companies on top of that matrix. So, it's how you leverage the matrix is going to determine your future. Whether or not you get disrupted, whether your the disruptor or the disruptee. It's not just about, we talked about this at the open. Cloud, SaaS, mobile, social, big data. They're kind of yesterday's news. It's now new artificial intelligence, machine intelligence, deep learning, machine learning, cognitive. We're still trying to figure out the parlance. You could feel the changes coming. I think this matrix idea is very powerful, and how that gets leveraged in organizations ultimately will determine the levels of disruption. But every single industry is at risk. Because every single industry is going digital, digital allows you to traverse industries. We've said it many times today. Amazon went from bookseller to content producer to grocer- >> John: To grocer now, right? >> To maybe high-end retailer. Content company, Apple with Apple Pay and companies getting into healthcare, trying to solve healthcare problems. The future of warfare, you live in the Beltway. The future of warfare and cybersecurity are just coming together. One of the biggest issues I think we face as a country is we have fake news, we're seeing the weaponization of social media, as James Scott said on theCUBE. So, all these things are coming together that I think are going to make the last 10 years look tame. >> Let's just switch over to the currency of AI, data. And we've talked to, Sam Lightstone today was talking about the database querying that they've developed with the Plex product. Some fascinating capabilities now that make it a lot richer, a lot more meaningful, a lot more relevant. And that seems to be, really, an integral step to making that stuff come alive and really making it applicable to improving your business. Because they've come up with some fantastic new ways to squeeze data that's relevant out, and get it out to the user. >> Well, if you think about what I was saying earlier about data as a foundational core and human expertise around it, versus what most companies are, is human expertise with data bolted on or data in silos. What was interesting about Queryplex, I think they called it, is it essentially virtualizes the data. Well, what does that mean? That means i can have data in place, but I can have access to that data, I can democratize that data, make it accessible to people so that they can become data-driven, data is the core. Now, what I don't know, and I don't know enough, just heard about it today, I missed that announcement, I think they announced it a year ago. He mentioned DB2, he mentioned Netezza. Most of the world is not on DB2 and Netezza even though IBM customers are. I think they can get to Hadoop data stores and other data stores, I just don't know how wide that goes, what the standards look like. He joked about the standards as, the great thing about standards is- >> There are a lot of 'em. (laughs) >> There's always another one you can pick if this one fails. And he's right about that. So, that was very interesting. And so, this is again, the question, can traditional companies close that machine learning, machine intelligence, AI gap? Close being, close the gap that the big five have created. And even the small guys, small guys like Uber and Airbnb, and so forth, but even those guys are getting disrupted. The Airbnbs and the Ubers, right? Again, blockchain comes in and you say, "Why do I need a trusted third party called Uber? "Why can't I do this on the blockchain?" I predict you're going to see even those guys get disrupted. And I'll say something else, it's hard to imagine that a Google or a Facebook can be unseated. But I feel like we may be entering an era where this is their peak. Could be wrong, I'm an Apple customer. I don't know, I'm not as enthralled as I used to be. They got trillions in the bank. But is it possible that opensource and blockchain and the citizen developer, the weekend and nighttime developers, can actually attack that engine of growth for the last 10 years, 20 years, and really break that monopoly? The Internet has basically become an oligopoly where five companies, six companies, whatever, 10 companies kind of control things. Is it possible that opensource software, AI, cryptography, all this activity could challenge the status quo? Being in this business as long as I have, things never stay the same. Leaders come, leaders go. >> I just want to say, never say never. You don't know. >> So, it brings it back to IBM, which is interesting to me. It was funny, I was asking Rob Thomas a question about disruption, and I think he misinterpreted it. I think he was thinking that I was saying, "Hey, you're going to get disrupted by all these little guys." IBM's been getting disrupted for years. They know how to reinvent. A lot of people criticize IBM, how many quarters they haven't had growth, blah, blah, blah, but IBM's made some big, big bets on the future. People criticizing Watson, but it's going to be really interesting to see how all this investment that IBM has made is going to pay off. They were early on. People in the Valley like to say, "Well, the Facebooks, and even Amazon, "Google, they got the best AI. "IBM is not there with them." But think about what IBM is trying to do versus what Google is doing. They're very consumer-oriented, solving consumer problems. Consumers have really led the consumerization of IT, that's true, but none of those guys are trying to solve cancer. So IBM is talking about some big, hairy, audacious goals. And I'm not as pessimistic as some others you've seen in the trade press, it's popular to do. So, bringing it back to IBM, I saw IBM as trying to disrupt itself. The challenge IBM has, is it's got a lot of legacy software products that have purchased over the years. And it's got to figure out how to get through those. So, things like Queryplex allow them to create abstraction layers. Things like Bluemix allow them to bring together their hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of SaaS applications. That takes time, but I do see IBM making some big investments to disrupt themselves. They've got a huge analytics business. We've been covering them for quite some time now. They're a leader, if not the leader, in that business. So, their challenge is, "Okay, how do we now "apply all these technologies to help "our customers create innovation?" What I like about the IBM story is they're not out saying, "We're going to go disrupt industries." Silicon Valley has a bifurcated disruption agenda. On the one hand, they're trying to, cloud, and SaaS, and mobile, and social, very disruptive technologies. On the other hand, is Silicon Valley going to disrupt financial services, healthcare, government, education? I think they have plans to do so. Are they going to be able to execute that dual disruption agenda? Or are the consumers of AI and the doers of AI going to be the ones who actually do the disrupting? We'll see, I mean, Uber's obviously disrupted taxis, Silicon Valley company. Is that too much to ask Silicon Valley to do? That's going to be interesting to see. So, my point is, IBM is not trying to disrupt its customers' businesses, and it can point to Amazon trying to do that. Rather, it's saying, "We're going to enable you." So it could be really interesting to see what happens. You're down in DC, Jeff Bezos spent a lot of time there at the Washington Post. >> We just want the headquarters, that's all we want. We just want the headquarters. >> Well, to the point, if you've got such a growing company monopoly, maybe you should set up an HQ2 in DC. >> Three of the 20, right, for a DC base? >> Yeah, he was saying the other day that, maybe we should think about enhancing, he didn't call it social security, but the government, essentially, helping people plan for retirement and the like. I heard that and said, "Whoa, is he basically "telling us he's going to put us all out of jobs?" (both laugh) So, that, if I'm a customer of Amazon's, I'm kind of scary. So, one of the things they should absolutely do is spin out AWS, I think that helps solve that problem. But, back to IBM, Ginni Rometty was very clear at the World of Watson conference, the inaugural one, that we are not out trying to compete with our customers. I would think that resonates to a lot of people. >> Well, to be continued, right? Next month, back with IBM again? Right, three days? >> Yeah, I think third week in March. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, theCUBE's going to be there. Next week we're in the Bahamas. This week, actually. >> Not as a group taking vacation. Actually a working expedition. >> No, it's that blockchain conference. Actually, it's this week, what am I saying next week? >> Although I'm happy to volunteer to grip on that shoot, by the way. >> Flying out tomorrow, it's happening fast. >> Well, enjoyed this, always good to spend time with you. And good to spend time with you as well. So, you've been watching theCUBE, machine learning everywhere. Build your ladder to AI. Brought to you by IBM. Have a good one. (techno music)