(upbeat music) >> Announcer: From the CUBE studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world. This is theCUBE Conversation. >> Hey, welcome back everybody Jeffrey Frick with theCUBE. We are getting through the COVID crisis. It continues and impacting the summer. I can't believe the summer's almost over, but there's a whole lot of things going on in terms of privacy and contact tracing and this kind of this feeling that there's this conflict between kind of personal identification and your personal privacy versus the public good around things like contact tracing. And I was in a session last week with two really fantastic experts. I wanted to bring them on the show and we're really excited to have back for I don't even know how many times Michelle has been on Michelle Dennedy, She is the former chief privacy officer at Cisco and now she's running the CEO of Identity, Michelle great to see you. >> Good to see you always Jeff >> Yeah and for the first time Dr. Ann Cavoukian and she is the executive director Global Privacy & Security By Design Center. Joining us from Toronto, worked with the government and is not short on opinions about privacy. (laughing) Ann good to see you. >> Hi Jeff thank you >> Yes, so let's jump into it cause I think one of the fundamental issues that we keep hearing is this zero-sum game. And I know and it's a big topic for you that there seems to be this trade off this either or and specifically let's just go to contact tracing. Cause that's a hot topic right now with COVID. I hear that it's like you're telling everybody where I'm going and you're sharing that with all these other people. How is this even a conversation and where do I get to choose whether I want to participate or not? >> You can't have people traced and tracked and surveil. You simply can't have it and it can't be an either or win lose model. You have to get rid of that data. Zero-sum game where only one person can win and the other one loses and it sums to a total of zero. Get rid of that, that's so yesterday. You have to have both groups winning positive sum. Meaning yes, you need public health and public safety and you need privacy. It's not one versus the other. We can do both and that's what we insist upon. So the contact term tracing app that was developed in Canada was based on the Apple Google framework, which is actually called exposure notification. It's totally privacy protective individuals choose to voluntarily download this app. And no personal information is collected whatsoever. No names, no geolocation data, nothing. It's simply notifies you. If you've been exposed to someone who is COVID-19 positive, and then you can decide on what action you wish to take. Do you want to go get tested? Do you want to go to your family doctor, whatever the decision lies with you, you have total control and that's what privacy is all about. >> Jeffrey: But what about the person who was sick? Who's feeding the top into that process and is the sick person that you're no notifying they obviously their personal information is part of that transaction. >> what the COVID alerts that we developed based on the Apple Google framework. It builds on manual contact tracing, which also take place the two to compliment each other. So the manual contact tracing is when individuals go get to get tested and they're tested as positive. So healthcare nurses will speak to that individual and say, please tell us who you've been in contact with recently, family, friends, et cetera. So the two work together and by working together, we will combat this in a much more effective manner. >> Jeffrey: So shifting over to you Michelle, you know, there's PIN and a lot of conversations all the time about personal identifiable information but right. But then medical has this whole nother class of kind of privacy restrictions and level of care. And I find it really interesting that on one hand, you know, we were trying to do the contract tracing on another hand if you know, my wife works in a public school. If they find out that one of the kids in this class has been exposed to COVID somehow they can't necessarily tell the teacher because of HIPAA restriction. So I wonder if you could share your thoughts on this kind of crossover between privacy and health information when it gets into this kind of public crisis and this inherent conflict for the public right to know and should the teacher be able to be told and it's not a really clean line with a simple answer, I don't think. >> No and Jeff, and you're also layering, you know, when you're talking about student data, you layering another layer of legal restriction. And I think what you're putting your thumb on is something that's really critical. When you talk about privacy engineering, privacy by design and ethics engineering. You can't simply start with the legal premise. So is it lawful to share HIPAA covered data. A child telling mommy I don't feel well not HIPAA covered. A child seeing a doctor for medical services and finding some sort of infection or illness covered, right? So figuring out the origin of the exact same zero one. Am I ill or not, all depends on context. So you have to first figure out, first of all let's tackle the moral issues. Have we decided that it is a moral imperative to expose certain types of data. And I separate that from ethics intentionally and with apologies to true ethicists. The moral imperative is sort of the things we find are so wrong. We don't want a list of kids who are sick or conversely once the tipping point goes the list of kids who are well. So then they are called out that's the moral choice. The ethical choice is just because you can should you, and that's a much longer conversation. Then you get to the legal imperative. Are you allowed to based on the past mistakes that we made. That's what every piece of litigation or legislation is particularly in a common law construct in the US. It's very important to understand that civil law countries like the European theater. They try to prospectively legislate for things that might go wrong. The construct is thinner in a common law economy where you do, you use test cases in the courts of law. That's why we are such a litigious society has its own baggage. But you have to now look at is that legal structure attempting to cover past harms that are so bad that we've decided as a society to punish them, is this a preventative law? And then you finally get to what I say is stage four for every evaluation is isn't viable, are the protections that you have to put on top of these restrictions. So dire that they either cannot be maintained because of culture process or cash or it just doesn't make sense anymore. So does it, is it better to just feel someone's forehead for illness rather than giving a blood assay, having it sent away for three weeks and then maybe blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. >> Right. >> You have to look at this as a system problem solving issue. >> So I want to look at it in the context of, again kind of this increased level of politicization and or, you know, kind of exposure outside of what's pretty closed. And I want to bring up AIDS and the porn industry very frankly right? Where people behaving in the behavior of the business risk a life threatening disease of which I still don't think it as a virus. So you know why, cause suddenly, you know, we can track for that and that's okay to track for that. And there's a legitimate reason to versus all of the other potential medical conditions that I may or may not have that are not necessarily brought to bear within coming to work. And we might be seeing this very soon. As you said, if people are wanting our temperatures, as we come in the door to check for symptoms. How does that play with privacy and healthcare? It's still fascinates me that certain things is kind of pop out into their own little bucket of regulation. I'm wondering if you could share your thoughts on that Ann. >> You know, whenever you make it privacy versus fill in the blank, especially in the context of healthcare. You end up turning it to a lose lose as opposed to even a win lose. Because you will have fewer people wanting to allow themselves to be tested, to be brought forward for fear of where that information may land. If it lands in the hands of your employer for example or your whoever owns your house if you're in renting, et cetera. It creates enormous problems. So regardless of what you may think of the benefits of that model. History has shown that it doesn't work well that people end up shying away from being tested or seeking treatment or any of those things. Even now with the contact tracing apps that have been developed. If you look globally the contact tracing apps for COVID-19. They have failed the ones that identify individuals in the UK, in Australia, in Western Canada that's how it started out. And they've completely dropped them because they don't work. People shy away from them. They don't use them. So they've gotten rid of that. They've replaced it with the, an app based on the Apple Google framework, which is the one that protects privacy and will encourage people to come forward and seek to be tested. If there's a problem in Germany. Germany is one of the largest privacy data protection countries in the world. Their privacy people are highly trusted in Germany. Germany based their app on the Apple Google framework. About a month ago they released it. And within 24 hours they had 6.5 million people download the app. >> Right. >> Because there is such trust there unlike the rest of the world where there's very little trust and we have to be very careful of the trust deficit. Because we want to encourage people to seek out these apps so they can attempt to be tested if there's a problem, but they're not going to use them. They're just going to shy away from them. If there is such a problem. And in fact I'll never forget. I did an interview about a month ago, three weeks ago in the US on a major major radio station that has like 54 million people followers. And I was telling them about the COVID alert the Canadian contact tracing app, actually it's called exposure notification app, which was built on the Apple Google framework. And people in hoard said they wouldn't trust anyone with it in the US. They just wouldn't trust it. So you see there's such a trust deficit. That's what we have to be careful to avoid. >> So I want to hold on the trust for just a second, but I want to go back to you Michelle and talk about the lessons that we can learn post 9/11. So the other thing right and keep going back to this over and over. It's not a zero-sum game. It's not a zero-sum game and yet that's the way it's often positioned as a way to break down existing barriers. So if you go back to 9/11 probably the highest profile thing being the Patriot Act, you know, where laws are put in place to protect us from terrorism that are going to do things that were not normally allowed to be done. I bet without checking real exhaustively that most of those things are still in place. You know, cause a lot of times laws are written. They don't go away for a long time. What can we learn from what happened after 9/11 and the Patriot Act and what should be really scared of, or careful of or wary of using that as a framework for what's happening now around COVID and privacy. >> It's a perfect, it's not even an analogy because we're feeling the shadows of the Patriot Act. Even now today, we had an agreement from the United States with the European community until recently called the Privacy Shield. And it was basically if companies and organizations that were, that fell under the Federal Trade Commissions jurisdiction, there's a bit of layering legal process here. But if they did and they agreed to supply enough protection to data about people who were present in the European Union to the same or better level than the Europeans would. Then that information could pass through this Privacy Shield unencumbered to and from the United States. That was challenged and taken down. I don't know if it's a month ago or if it's still March it's COVID time, but very recently on basis that the US government can overly and some would say indifferent nations, improperly look at European data based on some of these Patriot Act, FISA courts and other intrusive mechanisms that absolutely do apply if we were under the jurisdiction of the United States. So now companies and private actors are in the position of having to somehow prove that they will mechanize their systems and their processes to be immune from their own government intrusion before they can do digital trade with other parts of the world. We haven't yet seen the commercial disruption that will take place. So the unintended consequence of saying rather than owning the answers or the observations and the intelligence that we got out of the actual 9/11 report, which said we had the information we needed. We did not share enough between the agencies and we didn't have the decision making activity and will to take action in that particular instance. Rather than sticking to that knowledge. Instead we stuck to the Patriot Act, which was all but I believe to Congress people. When I mean, you see the hot mess. That is the US right now. When everyone but two people in the room vote for something on the quick. There's probably some sort of a psychological gun to your head. That's probably well thought out thing. We fight each other. That's part of being an American dammit. So I think having these laws that say, you've got to have this one solution because the boogeyman is coming or COVID is coming or terrorists or child pornographers are coming. There's not one solution. So you really have to break this down into an engineering problem and I don't mean technology when I say engineering. I mean looking at the culture, how much trust do you have? Who is the trusted entity? Do we trust Microsoft more than we trust the US government right now? Maybe that might be your contact. How you're going to build people, process and technology not to avoid a bad thing, but to achieve a positive objective because if you're not achieving that positive objective of understanding that safe to move about without masks on, for example, stop, just stop. >> Right, right. My favorite analogy Jeff, and I think I've said this to you in the past is we don't sit around and debate the merits of viscosity of water to protect concrete holes. We have to make sure that when you lead them to the concrete hole, there's enough water in the hole. No, you're building a swimming pool. What kind of a swimming pool do you want? Is it commercial, Is it toddlers? Is it (indistinct), then you build in correlation, protection and da da da da. But if you start looking at every problem as how to avoid hitting a concrete hole. You're really going to miss the opportunity to build and solve the problem that you want and avoid the risk that you do not want. >> Right right, and I want to go back to you on the trust thing. You got an interesting competent in that other show, talking about working for the government and not working directly for the people are voted in power, but for the kind of the larger bureaucracy and agency. I mean, the Edelman Trust Barometer is really interesting. They come out every year. I think it's their 20th year. And they break down kind of like media, government and business. And who do you trust and who do you not trust? What what's so fascinating about the time we're in today is even within the government, the direction that's coming out is completely diametrically opposed oftentimes between the Fed, the state and the local. So what does kind of this breakdown of trust when you're getting two different opinions from the same basic kind of authority due to people's ability or desire to want to participate and actually share the stuff that maybe or maybe not might get reshared. >> It leaves you with no confidence. Basically, you can't take confidence in any of this. And when I was privacy commissioner. I served for three terms, each term that was a different government, different political power in place. And before they had become the government, they were all for privacy and data protection believed in and all that. And then once they became the government all that changed and all of a sudden they wanted to control everyone's information and they wanted to be in power. No, I don't trust government. You know, people often point to the private sector as being the group you should distrust in terms of privacy. I say no, not at all. To me far worse is actually the government because everyone thinks they're there to do good job and trust them. You can't trust. You have to always look under the hood. I always say trust but verify. So unfortunately we have to be vigilant in terms of the protections we seek for privacy both with private sector and with the government, especially with the government and different levels of government. We need to ensure that people's privacy remains intact. It's preserved now and well into the future. You can't give up on it because there's some emergency a pandemic, a terrorist incident whatever of course we have to address those issues. But you have to insist upon people's privacy being preserved. Privacy forms the foundation of our freedom. You cannot have free and open societies without a solid foundation of privacy. So I'm just encouraging everyone. Don't take anything at face value, just because the government tells you something. It doesn't mean it's so always look under the hood and let us ensure the privacy is strongly protected. See emergencies come and go. The pandemic will end. What cannot end is our privacy and our freedom. >> So this is a little dark in here, but we're going to lighten it up a little bit because there's, as Michelle said, you know, if you think about building a pool versus putting up filling a hole, you know, you can take proactive steps. And there's a lot of conversation about proactive steps and I pulled Ann your thing Privacy by Design, The 7 Foundational Principles. I have the guys pull up a slide. But I think what's really interesting here is, is you're very, very specific prescriptive, proactive, right? Proactive, not reactive. Privacy is the default setting. You know, don't have to read the ULAs and I'm not going to read the, all the words we'll share it. People can find it. But what I wanted to focus on is there is an opportunity to get ahead of the curve, but you just have to be a little bit more thoughtful. >> That's right, and Privacy By Design it's a model of prevention, much like a medical model of prevention where you try to prevent the harms from arising, not just deal with them after the facts through regulatory compliance. Of course we have privacy laws and that's very important, but they usually kick in after there's been a data breach or privacy infraction. So when I was privacy commissioner obviously those laws were intact and we had to follow them, but I wanted something better. I wanted to prevent the privacy harms from arising, just like a medical model of prevention. So that's a Privacy By Design is intended to do is instantiate, embed much needed privacy protective measures into your policies, into your procedures bake it into the code so that it has a constant presence and can prevent the harms from arising. >> Jeffrey: Right right. One of the things I know you love to talk about Michelle is compliance, right? And is compliance enough. I know you like to talk about the law. And I think one of the topics that came up on your guys' prior conversation is, you know, will there be a national law, right? GDPR went through on the European side last year, the California Protection Act. A lot of people think that might become the model for more of a national type of rule. But I tell you, when you watch some of the hearings in DC, you know, I'm sure 90% of these people still print their emails and have their staff hand them to them. I mean, it's really scary that said, you know, regulation always does kind of lag probably when it needs to be put in place because people maybe abuse or go places they shouldn't go. So I wonder if you could share your thoughts on where you think legislation is going to going and how should people kind of see that kind of playing out over the next several years, I guess. >> Yeah, it's such a good question Jeff. And it's like, you know, I think even the guys in Vegas are having trouble with setting the high laws on this. Cameron said in I think it was December of 2019, which was like 15 years ago now that in the first quarter of 2020, we would see a federal law. And I participated in a hearing at the Senate banking committee, again, November, October and in the before times. I'm talking about the same thing and here we are. Will we have a comprehensive, reasonable, privacy law in the United States before the end of this president's term. No, we will not. I can say that with just such faith and fidelity. (laughing) But what does that mean? And I think Katie Porter who I'm starting to just love, she's the Congresswoman who's famous for pulling on her white board and just saying, stop fudging the numbers. Let's talk about the numbers. There's about a, what she calls the 20% legislative flip phone a caucus. So there are 20% or more on both sides of the aisle of people in the US who are in the position of writing our laws. who are still on flip phones and aren't using smart phones and other kinds of technologies. There's a generation gap. And as much as I can kind of chuckle at that a little bit and wink, wink, nudge, nudge, isn't that cute. Because you know, my dad, as you know, is very very technical and he's a senior citizen. This is hard. I hope he doesn't see that but... (laughing) But then it's not old versus young. It's not let's get a whole new group and crop and start over again. What it is instead and this is, you know, as my constant tome sort of anti compliance. I'm not anti compliance. You got to put your underwear on before your pants or it's just really hard. (laughing) And I would love to see anyone who is capable of putting their underwater on afterwards. After you've made the decision of following the process. That is so basic. It comes down to, do you want the data that describes or is donated or observed about human beings. Whether it's performance of your employees. People you would love to entice onto your show to be a guest. People you'd like to listen and consume your content. People you want to meet. People you want to marry. Private data as Ann says, does the form the foundation of our freedom, but it also forms the foundation of our commerce. So that compliance, if you have stacked the deck proactively with an ethics that people can understand and agree with and have a choice about and feel like they have some integrity. Then you will start to see the acceleration factor of privacy being something that belongs on your balance sheet. What kind of data is high quality, high nutrition in the right context. And once you've got that, you're in good shape. >> I'm laughing at privacy on the balance sheet. We just had a big conversation about data on the balance sheets. It's a whole, that's a whole another topic. So we can go for days. I have Pages and pages of notes here. But unfortunately I know we've got some time restrictions. And so, and I want to give you the last word as you look forward. You've been in this for a while. You've been in it from the private side, as well as the government side. And you mentioned lots of other scary things, kind of on the horizon. Like the kick of surveillance creep, which there's all kinds of interesting stuff. You know, what advice do you give to citizens. What advice do you give to leaders in the public sector about framing the privacy conversation >> I always want to start by telling them don't frame privacy as a negative. It's not a negative. It's something that can build so much. If you're a business, you can gain a competitive advantage by strongly protecting your customer's privacy because then it will build such loyalty and you'll gain a competitive advantage. You make it work for you. As a government you want your citizens to have faith in the government. You want to encourage them to understand that as a government you respect their privacy. Privacy is highly contextual. It's only the individual who can make determinations relating to the disclosure of his or her personal information. So make sure you build that trust both as a government and as a business, private sector entity and gain from that. It's not a negative at all, make it work for you, make it work for your citizens, for your customers, make it a plus a win win that will give you the best returns. >> Isn't it nice when doing the right thing actually provides better business outcomes too. It's like diversity of opinion and women on boards. And kind of things- >> I love that. we cover these days. >> Well ladies, thank you very very much for your time. I know you've got a hard stop, so I'm going to cut you loose or else we would go for probably another hour and a half, but thank you so much for your time. Thank you for continuing to beat the drum out there and look forward to our next conversation. Hopefully in the not too distant future. >> My pleasure Jeff. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you too. >> All right She's Michelle. >> She's Ann. I'm Jeff. You're watching theCUBE. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> Announcer: From Denver, Colorado, it's theCUBE. Covering Super Computing 2017 brought to you by Intel. (upbeat music) >> Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeffrey Frick here with theCube. We're in Denver, Colorado at Super Computing 17. I think it's the 20th year of the convention. 12,000 people. We've never been here before. It's pretty amazing. Amazing keynote, really talking about space, and really big, big, big computing projects, so, excited to be here, and we've got our first guest of the day. He's Bernard Friebe, he is the Senior Director of FPGA, I'll get that good by the end of the day, Software Solutions for Intel Programmable group. First off, welcome, Bernard. >> Thank you. I'm glad to be here. >> Absolutely. So, have you been to this conference before? >> Yeah, a couple of times before. It's always a big event. Always a big show for us, so I'm excited. >> Yeah, and it's different, too, cuz it's got a lot of academic influence, as well, as you walk around the outside. It's pretty hardcore. >> Yes, it's wonderful, and you see a lot of innovation going on, and we need to move fast. We need to move faster. That's what it is. And accelerate. >> And that's what you're all about, acceleration, so, Intel's making a lot of announcements, really, about acceleration at FPGA. For acceleration and in data centers and in big data, and all these big applications. So, explain just a little bit how that seed is evolving and what some of the recent announcements are all about. >> The world of computing must accelerate. I think we all agree on that. We all see that that's a key requirement. And FPGA's are a truly versatile, multi-function accelerator. It accelerates so many workloads in the high-performance computing space, may it be financial, genomics, oil and gas, data analytics, and the list goes on. Machine learning is a very big one. The list goes on and on. And, so, we're investing heavily in providing solutions which makes it much easier for our users to develop and deploy FPGA in a high-performance computing environment. >> You guys are taking a lot of steps to make the software programming at FPGA a lot easier, so you don't have to be a hardcore hardware engineer, so you can open it up to a broader ecosystem and get a broader solution set. Is that right? >> That's right, and it's not just the hardware. How do you unlock the benefits of FPGA as a versatile accelerator, so their parallelism, their ability to do real-time, low-latency, acceleration of many different workloads, and how do you enable that in an environment which is truly dynamic and multi-function, like a data center. And so, the product we've recently announced is the acceleration stack for xeon with FPGA, which enables that use more. >> So, what are the components for that stack? >> It starts with hardware. So, we are building a hardware accelerator card, it's a pc express plugin card, it's called programmable accelerator card. We have integrated solutions where you have everything on an FPGA in package, but what's common is a software framework solution stack, which sits on top of these different hardware implementation, which really makes it easy for a developer to develop an accelerator, for a user to then deploy that accelerator and run it in their environment, and it also enables a data center operator to basically enable the FPGA like any other computer resources by integrating it into their orchestration framework. So, multiple levels taking care of all those needs. >> It's interesting, because there's a lot of big trends that you guys are taking advantage of. Obviously, we're at Super Computing, but big data, streaming analytics, is all the rage now, so more data faster, reading it in real time, pumping it into the database in real time, and then, right around the corner, we have IoT and internet of things and all these connected devices. So the demand for increased speed, to get that data in, get that data processed, get the analytics back out, is only growing exponentially. >> That's right, and FPGAs, due to their flexibility, have distinct advantages there. The traditional model is look aside of offload, where you have a processor, and then you offload your tasks to your accelerator. The FPGA, with their flexible I/Os and flexible core can actually run directly in the data path, so that's what we call in-line processing. And what that allows people to do is, whatever the source is, may it be cameras, may it be storage, may it be through the network, through ethernet, can stream directly into the FPGA and do your acceleration as the data comes in in a streaming way. And FPGAs provide really unique advantages there versus other types of accelerators. Low-latency, very high band-width, and they're flexible in a sense that our customers can build different interfaces, different connectivity around those FPGAs. So, it's really amazing how versatile the usage of FPGA has become. >> It is pretty interesting, because you're using all the benefits that come from hardware, hardware-based solutions, which you just get a lot of benefits when things are hardwired, with the software component and enabling a broader ecosystem to write ready-made solutions and integrations to their existing solutions that they already have. Great approach. >> The acceleration stack provides a consistent interface to the developer and the user of the FPGA. What that allows our ecosystem and our customers to do is to define these accelerators based on this framework, and then they can easily migrate those between different hardware platforms, so we're building in future improvements of the solution, and the consistent interfaces then allow our customers and partners to build their software stacks on top of it. So, their investment, once they do it and we target our Arria 10 programmable accelerator card can easily be leveraged and moved forward into the next generation strategy, and beyond. We enable, really, and encourage a broad ecosystem, to build solutions. You'll see that here at the show, many partners now have demos, and they show their solutions built on Intel FPGA hardware and the acceleration stack. >> OK, so I'm going to put you on the spot. So, these are announced, what's the current state of the general availability? >> We're sampling now on the cards, the acceleration stack is available for delivery to customers. A lot of it is open source, by the way, so it can already be downloaded from GitHub And the partners are developing the solutions they are demonstrating today. The product will go into volume production in the first half of next year. So, we're very close. >> All right, very good. Well, Bernard, thanks for taking a few minutes to stop by. >> Oh, it's my pleasure. >> All right. He's Bernard, I'm Jeff. You're watching theCUBE from Super Computing 17. Thanks for watching. (upbeat music)

>> Narrator: From the Computer History Museum in the heart of Silicon Valley, it's theCUBE, covering food IT: Fork to Farm, brought to you by Western Digital. >> Hey, welcome back here and ready, Jeffrey Frick with theCUBE. We are in Silicon Valley at the Computer History Museum at a really unique event. It's food IT: Fork to farm, not the other way around, which you might think, "Hm, that doesn't make sense," but actually it does, really by the consumer-driven world that's hitting everything including the food and agriculture and we're really excited to have the guys running this show, representing The Mixing Bowl. Rob Trice is the founder and Michael Rose, partner, of The Mixing Bowl. Gentlemen, welcome. >> Thank you for having us. >> Thank you. >> So, first off, a little history on this event, it's the first time we've been here. I think you said there's about 350 people, really a broad spectrum: academe, technology, farmers, from New Zealand, I think was the one I heard from the furthest place. What's kind of the genesis of this show? >> So, my background is 15 years in mobile internet, telecom venture capital and my wife, actually, a couple of years ago, started running a cattle ranch out on the Pacific Coast and through that I saw how little technology was being used on the ranch and amongst local food producers. I came back to Silicon Valley and none of the big food or ag. players were here then, four years ago. Monsanto just had up a venture group, Unilever and Nestle had one person each here, but by and large, Silicon Valley's IT innovation ecosystem was not focused on food and agriculture. So I started The Mixing Bowl as a little bit more than just a Meetup group and we did it a couple of times and then somebody said, "You know, we should do a conference on this topic." So the first year we did it at Stanford with a partner of ours, and we thought might have 150 people come. We had over 300 people come and it was this kind of audience, kind of cross-section of technologists, food and agriculturalists. So that's when I said, "You know, I'm done with telecom. I want to go ride this food tech, ag. tech wave and see where the heck this comes to roost." So, it's been four years now and I'm pleased to be working not only with Michael, but then our colleagues Seana and Brita, and having a blast, learning a lot. >> Okay, so that's the conference. What about for The Mixing Bowl specifically, what is your charter as an organization? >> Well we've got three aspects of our business, so the first one is information sharing, so doing events like this. We do themed events, we did a water-tech for agricultural event down in Fresno. And then we also are contributing writers for Forbes. We also have an advisory business where we work with large corporates who are seeking innovation and trying to bring innovation to the food and ag. Sector, trying to bring technology and innovation. And then we have an investment side of our business, out of the brand Better Food Ventures. So we invest in the space as well, we have about 12 companies in our portfolio. >> That's interesting that you said there wasn't a lot of tech in ag. here and yet, we talked to Paul from Ford, we talked about their conference that they have at Salinas and of course, Sacramento Valley, San Fernando Valley, or not San Fernando Valley, San Joaquin Valley is a huge producer of food. So why do you think it was so late to come here? >> Well, I think that there have been other opportunities and I think that there's a misperception that agriculture doesn't need IT and I think what we've now realized is there's a huge opportunity, whether it is Internet of Things or looking at tracking and transparency, there's a lot of inefficiencies in our food production system and there also are a lot of societal challenges that we have. Everyone talks about feeding nine billion people by 2050, but then also we look at food safety, we look at what the consumer wants, which is why we're here today, talking about the fork to the farm. Consumers want change in food. They want different kinds of food. They want it delivered to them in different ways. All of these are opportunities for tech to be applied to food and agriculture. >> So we love being here. Go ahead, Michael. >> No, I was just going to say, I think it's like any other vertical in any other sector that starts to adopt technology over time. And even in the ag. sector, you've seen in the commodity crops in the Midwest with the automation that they adopted technology early but you've got other sectors, whether it's the specialty crops down in Salinas or people who are doing almonds, etc. Those people are starting to adopt technology, they're just a little further behind than you are with commodity crops. >> Right. It's funny, we interviewed the guy from Caterpillar a few weeks ago, and they are already running huge fleets of autonomous vehicles in mining. Obviously they have a lot of equipment involved in agriculture as well, so it seems kind of start and stop depending on the vendors that you're talking about. But one of the big themes we talk about, we go to a lot of platform shows, right? It's Cloud, it's edge, it's connectivity, it's big data, drones, I mean, as you look at some of these big classifications of technology that are now being applied in ag. are there any particular ones that kind of jump out as either the catalyst or the leading edge of adoption that's really helping drive this revolution? >> I guess, if you think about the fact that we're kind of looking at this staircase of adoption. One thing that we need to do is actually digitize information and that's one of the challenges that we have. Once we digitize, then we can start to manage operations based on that data, then we can start to optimize, and then we can automate. So it's a four-step staircase that we look at and I think in a lot of cases, even at restaurants, a lot of them are still placing orders via fax and telephone. We need to get off of that and start getting them to order online through online platforms and so forth. So, at any rate, one area that I'm particularly excited about is aerial imaging for agriculture because I think you are instantaneously, by just doing a flyover, providing farmers with more information than they've ever had. In some cases, I think you could actually argue, you're going from a data desert to a data flood. Now the challenge is moving up that staircase to go make sense of that data and then ultimately be able to give prescriptive machine-learning or artificial intelligence-based recommendations to that farmer on how to do a better job, whether that is increasing sustainability, maximizing yield, looking at pricing, any of those kind of things. >> Right, one of the things you hear real often in every industry, is kind of the old guy using intuition versus becoming really a data-driven organization. Are you seeing that classic conflict, or do people get it pretty quickly when you can provide the data to show them things that they could never really see before? >> I was going to say, one of the biggest challenges that's also dictating the market timing is the fact that average American farmer is about 65, so we now are having this turn as the kids are coming back who are tech-enabled back to the production point, back to the farm and starting to take over farms from their parents. And their parents, of course, have just been maybe a little slower to adopt new technology. So it's just a timing issue. I think the other thing is, there are all the different pieces, whether it's the sensors or whether it's the connectivity of data or whether it's the storage of data, there needs to be a solution and they need to be integrated. And so we see this on the farm, getting that data off and then getting it stored and then how to use it. But then you also see this in restaurants. In restaurants, you have all of the delivery services coming in, so a restaurant can have seven different delivery services picking up from the restaurant. And they have seven different iPads that they have to manage with their point of sales system and very few of them currently will integrate with a POS, right? >> Right. And I think whether it's in a restaurant or on a farm, this lack of integration, API integration, making it a usable solution as opposed to a number of features, is where we're probably going to see a lot more tech innovation. I think unfortunately what you're probably also going to see is a lot of consolidation because you've had venture capital-backed companies with solutions for food and agriculture that have their own proprietary solution, their own OS. And we know that, from other tech sectors, that's not a long-term viable strategy. Ultimately, the data will be free, it will open up, it will interconnect, and we just need to happen in food and in agriculture. >> And are they getting that? Because the classic farmer dilemma that you learn in economics 101 is they have a great crop, crap prices go in the toilet. They have a crappy crop, price is up but they don't have enough quantity to share and gaming the system, and who's going to plant what? Do they start to see the value of sharing some level of data aggregation for the benefit of all? >> I think there's a misperception out there that farmers won't share their data. The reality is they're willing to share their data, if it's providing some value to them. A lot of people want to charge these farmers for their data without any demonstrable benefit to using that data. And I think where you can find a solution, I think the farmers are, speaking generally here, I think the other thing is, farmers know, if you're not paying for the data, you probably are the product, right? And they're smart enough to figure that out, so they don't want people misusing their data for reasons that aren't clear to them. And they've had bad experiences with that in the past. >> It's not any different than any other sector. I mean, go back seven years ago when people said, "Well, we're going to mix your data up with somebody else's data, but it's not a problem, right? Zeros and ones, it's bits." And they were both like, "Nooo," and they got over it, right? >> Right, but the other thing I'll say is I think that the challenges are changing and this is not just standard commodity ups and downs, particularly if you look at here in California, the specialty crops. We have lost access to what has been a cheap labor pool historically and we need to automate. So now we need to go where northern Europe has already gone, in terms of automating production for specialty crops and then things like climate change are causing different crops to grow in different seasons and we need to be able to predict that, we need to take more of it indoors as a nice complement to outdoor growing. So there's a lot of different things that farmers are dealing with now that they really haven't had to deal with in the future. And I think the same is true on the restaurant side. >> Yeah, and the predictability of understanding what your needs are going to be is going to be so important here, particularly because we need to see more automation, both on the farm and production and the restaurants. I know a lot of people talk about being concerned about losing their jobs to automation or robotics, but the reality is, the National Restaurant Association says in the next 10 years, we have a shortage of 200,000 line cooks. >> Jeff: Just line cooks? >> Just line cooks, right. So when you see someone like Chowbotics who's here showing the automated customized salad maker, there's clearly a need in the market place for these kind of approaches. >> The other thing too is you touch on such big, global societal issues. Obviously we're in California here, water. We had a really wet winter, but you know, I'm looking for the water track, I mean that's got to be a huge piece of this whole thing. You have the environmental concern, again, in California, there's always the fight between the farmers that want the water in the rivers and the environmentalists who want to keep the salmon swimming upstream. These are not simple problems that have an obvious solution, and as I think somebody said in they keynote, there's no free trade-off. You've got to make decisions based on values and they're not simple problems. So you guys are right in the middle of a lot of big society changes. >> Yeah, and I think that's one of the things. This is not just a US or a California thing. Globally, things are changing. And whether it is China having more disposable income available to eat more meat and what the ramifications of that are versus other societies with more environmental challenges moving front and center to them, the labor challenge. There's a lot of different things that are happening globally and we don't really have that connectivity layer globally to share this innovation to find the right solutions and get them addressing these market challenges. >> Right. >> Yeah, I would say the thing is, it is complex, so they're going to be talking about tomato growth later on today, and the example somebody was giving is we went to precision watering instead of spray, well, when you go to drip irrigation, you actually have to pressurize an entire system so you actually use more energy. So we use less water but we burn more coal, more oil, whatever it may be, to pressurize the system. And then if it produces a product that has more water content, you spend more energy drying it on the backend. So there's trade-offs. I would say the other thing that we found is really interesting is people ask us if we're social impact investors and we aren't but we have a social impact consideration about what we do, but pretty much everything that you see in this space right now from an innovative side is moving the ball forward, either it's better nutrition, it's less input, it's less chemicals, less water. So this innovation in food and ag. is just by its nature having a very positive impact. >> Right, two years ago, we called food IT macro to micro, and fundamentally what we believe at The Mixing Bowl is, as Michael said, at Better Food Ventures, we don't consider ourselves social impact investors, first and foremost, we want to keep financial grounding. However, I think at a core level, we all believe that harnessing IT to go address these societal challenges in food and agriculture is the biggest thing that we can make. So the reality is we're not going to be able to do much more with the chemical era, we've maximized the yield that we can get there. So now we are going to be looking at IT and how can we actually apply IT to these different challenges and I'm going to cough now. (Jeff laughs) (Rob coughs) >> Well, even something, people think IT and they think highly technical and they think of Cloud, they think of data connections, well look at food waste. The bulk of food waste that happens in our society happens at the home to the restaurant. So even if it's an iPhone app that's teaching our children how to deal with food waste in their home, it's a technical approach, it's hugely impactful. And it's those kind of touch points that will make a difference. >> Right, right. Well, Rob, Michael, thanks for inviting us, it's really fun to come to more of an application-centered show than an infrastructure show and see how the impact of Cloud and big data and sensors and IOT and drones and all of these things are having material impact on us day by day. So congratulations on the event and we'll let you go back to the keynote stage, they're waiting for you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, I'm Jeff Frick, you're watching theCUBE. We are at the Food IT show in Mountain View, California. We'll be right back with the next guest after this short break. Thanks for watching. (electronic music)