>> From Cambridge Massachusetts, it's The Cube covering MIT Chief Data Officer, and Information Quality Symposium 2019. Brought to you by SiliconANGLE Media. (electronic music) >> Welcome back to MIT in Cambridge, Massachusets everybody. You're watching The Cube, the leader in live tech coverage. My name is Dave Vellante I'm here with Paul Gillin. Day two of the of the MIT Chief Data Officer Information Quality Conference. One of the things we like to do, at these shows, we love to profile Boston area start-ups that are focused on data, and in particular we love to focus on start-ups that are founded by women. Julie Johnson is here, She's the Co-founder and CEO of Armored Things. Julie, great to see you again. Thanks for coming on. >> Great to see you. >> So why did you start Armored Things? >> You know, Armored Things was created around a mission to keep people safe. Early in the time where were looking at starting this company, incidents like Las Vegas happened, Parkland happened, and we realized that the world of security and operations was really stuck in the past right? It's a manual solutions generally driven by a human instinct, anecdotal evidence, and tools like Walkie-Talkies and video cameras. We knew there had to be a better way right? In the world of Data that we live in today, I would ask if either of you got in your car this morning without turning on Google Maps to see where you were going, and the best route with traffic. We want to help universities, ball parks, corporate campuses do that for people. How do we keep our people safe? By understanding how they live. >> Yeah, and stay away from Lambert Street in Cambridge by the way. >> (laughing) >> Okay so, you know in people, when they think about security they think about cyber, they think about virtual security, et cetera et cetera, but there's also the physical security aspect. Can you talk about the balance of those two? >> Yeah, and I think both are very important. We actually tend to mimic some of the revolutions that have happened on the cyber security side over the last 10 years with what we're trying to do in the world of physical security. So, folks watching this who are familiar with cyber security might understand concepts like anomaly detection, SIEM and SOAR for orchestrated response. We very much believe that similar concepts can be applied to the physical world, but the unique thing about the physical world, is that it has defined boundaries, right? People behave in accordance with their environment. So, how do we take the lessons learned in cyber security over 10 to 15 years, and apply them to that physical world? I also believe that physical and cyber security are converging. So, are there things that we know in the physical world because of how we approach the problem? That can be a leading indicator of a threat in either the physical world or the digital world. What many people don't understand is that for some of these cyber security hacks, the first weak link is physical access to your network, to your data, to your systems. How do we actually help you get an eye on that, so you already have some context when you notice it in the digital realm. >> So, go back to the two examples you sited earlier, the two shooting examples. Could those have been prevented or mitigated in some way using the type of technology you're building? >> Yeah, I hate to say that you could ever prevent an incident like that. Everyone wants us to do better. Our goal is to get a better sense predicatively of the leading indicators that tell you you have a problem. So, because we're fundamentally looking at patterns of people and flow, I want to know when a normal random environment starts to disperse in a certain way, or if I have a bottle neck in my environment. Because if then I have that type of incident occur, I already know where my hotspots are, where my pockets of risk are. So, I can address it that much more efficiently from a response perspective. >> So if people are moving quickly away from a venue, it might be and indication that there's something wrong- >> It could be, Yeah. That demands attention. >> Yeah, when you go to a baseball game, or when you go to work I would imagine that you generally have a certain pattern of behavior. People know conceptually what those patterns are. But, we're the first effort to bring them data to prove what those patterns are so that they can actually use that data to consistently re-examine their operations, re-examine their security from a staffing perspective, from a management perspective, to make sure that they're using all the data that's at their disposal. >> Seems like there would be many other applications beyond security of this type of analysis. Are you committed to the security space, or do you have broader ambitions? >> Are we committed to the security space is a hundred percent. I would say the number one reason why people join our team, and the number one reason why people call us to be customers is for security. There's a better way to do things. We fundamentally believe that every ball park, every university, every corporate campus, needs a better way. I think what we've seen though is exactly what you're saying. As we built our software, for security in these venues, and started with an understanding of people and flow, there's a lot that falls out of that right? How do I open gates that are more effective based on patterns of entry and exit. How do I make sure that my staffing's appropriate for the number of people I have in my environment. There's lots of other contextual information that can ultimately drive a bottom line or top line revenue. So, you take a pro sports venue for example. If we know that on a 10 degree colder day people tend to eagres more early in the game, how do we adjust our food and beverage strategy to save money on hourly workers, so that we're not over staffing in a period of time that doesn't need those resources. >> She's talking about the physical and the logical security worlds coming together, and security of course has always been about data, but 10 years ago it was staring at logs increasing the machines are helping us do that, and software is helping us do that. So can you add some color to at least the trends in the market generally, and then maybe specifically what you're doing bringing machine intelligence to the data to make us more secure. >> Sure, and I hate to break it to you, but logs are still a pretty big part of what people are watching on a daily basis, as are video cameras. We've seen a lot of great technology evolve in the video management system realm. Very advanced technology great at object recognition and detecting certain behaviors with a video only solution, right? How do we help pinpoint certain behaviors on a specific frame or specific camera. The only problem with that is, if you have people watching those cameras, you're still relying on humans in the loop to catch a malicious behavior, to respond in the event that they're notified about something unusual. That still becomes a manual process. What we do, is we use data to watch not only cameras, but we are watching your cameras, your Wi-Fi, access control. Contextual data from public transit, or weather. How do we get this greater understanding of your environment that helps us watch everything so that we can surface the things that you want the humans in the loop to pay attention to, right? So, we're not trying to remove the human, we're trying to help them focus their time and make decisions that are backed by data in the most efficient way possible. >> How about the concerns about The Surveillance Society? In some countries, it's just taken for granted now that you're on camera all the time. In the US that's a little bit more controversial. Is what your doing, do you have to be sensitive to that in designing the tools you're building? >> Yeah, and I think to Dave's question, there are solutions like facial recognition which are very much working on identifying the individual. We have a philosophy as a company, that security doesn't necessarily start with the individual, it starts with the aggregate. How do we understand at an aggregate macro level, the patterns in an environment. Which means I don't have to identify Paul, or I don't have to identify Dave. I want to look for what's usual and unusual, and use that as the basis of my response. There's certain instances where you want to know who people are. Do I want to know who my security personnel are so I can dispatch them more efficiently? Absolutely. Let's opt those people in and allow them to share the information they need to share to be better resources for our environment. But, that's the exception not the norm. If we make the norm privacy first, I think we'll be really successful in this emerging GDPR data centric world. >> But I could see somebody down the road saying hey can you help us find this bad guy? And my kids at camp this week, This is his 7th year of camp, and this year was the first year my wife, she was able to sign up for a facial recognition thing. So, we used to have to scroll through hundreds and hundreds of pictures to see oh, there he is! And so Deb signs up for this thing, and then it pings you when your son has a picture taken. >> Yeah. And I was like, That's awesome. Oh. (laughing) >> That's great until you think about it. >> But there aren't really any clear privacy laws today. And so you guys are saying, look it, we're looking at the big picture. >> That's right. >> But that day is coming isn't it? >> There's certain environments that care more than others. If you think about universities, which is where we first started building our technology, they cared greatly about the privacy of their students. Health care is a great example. We want to make sure that we're protecting peoples personal data at a different level. Not only because that's the right thing to do, but also from a regulatory perspective. So, how do we give them the same security without compromising the privacy. >> Talk about Bottom line. You mentioned to us earlier that you just signed a contract with a sports franchise, you're actually going to help them, help save them money by deploying their resources more efficiently. How does your technology help the bottom line? >> Sure, you're average sporting venue, is getting great information at the point a ticket is scanned or a ticket is purchased, they have very little visibility beyond that into the customer journey during an event at their venue. So, if you think about again, patterns of people and flow from a security perspective, at our core we're helping them staff the right gates, or figure out where people need to be based on hot spots in their environment. But, what that also results in is an ability to drive other operational benefits. Do we have a zone that's very low utilization that we could use as maybe even a benefit to our avid fans. Send them to that area, get traffic in that area, and now give them a better concession experience because of it, right? Where they're going to end up spending more money because they're not waiting in line in the different zone. So, how do we give them a dashboard in real time, but also alerts or reports that they can use on an ongoing basis to change their decision making going forward. >> So, give us the company overview. Where are you guys at with funding, head count, all that good stuff. >> So, we raised a seed round with some great Boston and Silicon Valley investors a year ago. So, that was Glasswing is a Boston AI focused fund, has been a great partner for us, and Inovia which is Canada's largest VC fund recently opened a Silicon Valley office. We just started raising a series A about a week ago. I'm excited to say those conversation have been going really well so far. We have some potential strategic partners who we're excited about who know data better then anyone else that we think would help us accelerate our business. We also have a few folks who are very familiar with the large venue space. You know, the distributed campuses, the sporting and entertainment venues. So, we're out looking for the right partner to lead our series A round, and take our business to the next level, but where we are today with five really great branded customers, I think we'll have 20 by the end of next year, and we won't stop fighting 'till we're at every ball park, every football stadium, every convention center, school. >> The big question, at some point will you be able to eliminate security lines? (laughing) >> I don't think that's my core mission. (laughing) But, optimistically I'd love to help you. Right, I think there's some very talented people working on that challenge, so I'll defer that one to them. >> And rough head count today? >> We have 23 people. >> You're 23 people so- >> Yeah, I headquartered in Boston Post Office Square. >> Awesome, great location. So, and you say you've got five customers, so you're generating revenue? >> Yes >> Okay, good. Well, thank you for coming in The Cube >> Yeah, thank you. >> And best of luck with the series A- >> I appreciate it and going forward >> Yeah, great. >> All right, and thank you for watching. Paul Gillin and I will be back right after this short break. This is The Cube from MIT Chief Data Officer Information Quality Conference in Cambridge. We'll be right back. (electronic music)

>> Announcer: Live, from Vancouver, Canada it's the CUBE, covering OpenStack Summit North America 2018, brought to you by Red Hat, the Open Stack Foundation, and it's ecosystem partners. >> Welcome back, I'm Stu Miniman and my cohost John Troyer and you're watching the CUBE, the worldwide leader in tech coverage. Happy to welcome back to the program long time friend of the CUBE back from the earliest days, Randy Bias, Vice President with Juniper, Randy, great to see you. >> Absolutely, great to be back with you guys. >> All right, so Randy, we've been talking about, you know, community, and everything's going good and attendance might be down a little bit but how we fit in with containers and kubernetes, and everything, so we expect you to tear everything up for us and tell us the reality of what's happening in this community. >> I'll do my best (laughing). >> All right, so before we get to the kubernetic stuff, you're working on, we used to call it OpenContrail? Which you were involved in before Juniper acquired it, went through a rebranding recently, Tungsten, which I was looking up, came from the word heavy stone, give us the update from the networking side. >> Yeah, so the short history is that there was a company called Contrail, and they created a software defined networking controller, it was acquired by Juniper in 2012, 2013, and then that was open sourced, so Juniper for a long time was running with sort of two editions, Contrail which was the commercial offering, and OpenContrail which was the open source, and then shortly after I joined Juniper, identified that, you know, we really needed to go back to the drawing board on the way that we had organized the community, and transition it from being Juniper-led to community led, and so over the past year, I spearheaded that effort, and then that culminated in us announcing at the end of March at ONS that, you know, OpenContrail was now Tungsten Fabric. We renamed it, we moved it into the Linux foundation, under its governance, and now Juniper is one of many people of the community that have a seat at the table for the management, both from a business and technical perspective, and we're moving forward with a new reinvigorated community. >> Yeah, so networking sits at really the intersection of this multi-cloud world that we're living in. There's so many players trying to be there, you know Cisco, really moving to become more of a software company, when I interviewed their number two guy at their show, he's like, when you think of Cisco in the future, we're not even going to be a networking company, we'll be a software company. VMware, of course, pushed heavy through, then the Nicira acquisition, where does Tungsten fit, kind of compare and contrast for us, where it fits among some of these other offerings out there in the marketplace. >> Yeah, I mean, I think most enterprise vendors are in a similar transition from being a hardware to software companies. We're no different than any of the rest. I think we have a pretty significant advantage in that we have a lot of growth in the cloud sector, so a lot of the large public clouds are our customers and we're selling a tremendous amount of hardwaring to them, so I think we've got a lot longer runway. But, you know, we just recently hired CTO, Bikash Koley, out of Google, and we're starting to see some additional folks out of Google, like my new boss, Morgan, and what that's bringing with it is a very much a software first type perspective. So Bikash and Morgan really built everything for the Google network from the topper rack all the way out to the win and it's almost all software-based, disaggregated, hardware, software, opensource software running on top of white boxes, and so that kind of perspective is now really deep, start beginning to become embedded in Juniper. And at the head of that is Tungsten. So we see Tungsten Fabric as being sort of a tool that we use to create, you know, a global ubiquitous network fabric, that anybody can use anywhere, without talking to Juniper at all, without knowing that Juniper's part of Tungsten, and then as they grow up and they get to a point where they need multi-cloud, they need federation, or they need kind of day two enterprise operations, you know, we have a commercial version and a commercial distribution that they can use. >> Randy, we talked a little bit about OpenContrail and last year, at OpenStack Summit and moving it to a more of a community based governance model, and now that's happened with the Linux Foundation, can you talk a little bit about the role of opensource governance, and corporate governance, and then foundations, and just going forward, you know, what's an effective model for 2018 going forward, for a foundation-led project and maybe in the context of Tungsten Fabric, and how is that looking? >> Yeah, so again, OpenContrail's now Tungsten Fabrics, might be new for some of the viewers, lot of people still coming to terms with that. And so one of the things that we noticed is that, and when many people go and they say, hey, we want opensource first, the AT&T's of this world, part of what they're saying, one of the aspects of being opensource versus we want to be one of many around the table, we want to have a seat at the table, we want to have the option to contribute code back, and we want to feel like it's a group effort. And so that was a big factor, right? It was an opensource project, but it was largely the governance was carried by Juniper, all the testing infrastructure was Juniper, you know, all of the people who made architectural decisions were Juniper, all of the lead contributors were Juniper, and so, going to Linux Foundation was critical to us having a legal framework, for the trademarks, the code, the licenses, the contributor license agreements, are all owned and operated by the Linux Foundation and not by Juniper, so we basically have a trusted third party who can mediate all those things and create a structure, a governance small structure where Juniper has one seat at the table, and all the other community members do as well. So it was really key to getting, to moving to that model to increase people's interest in the project and to really go the next level. There just wasn't any way to do it without doing this. >> All right, so, Randy, let's talk about OpenStack. You were watching the keynote yesterday, you were, you know, in the Twitter stream, >> Randy: I don't usually watch keynotes, man. >> Stu: But you know this community, so-- >> I do know this community (laughing). >> Give us kind of the good, the bad, and the ugly from your standpoint as to, you know, where we've gone, you know, what's doing well, and what you're frustrated as heck that we still haven't fixed yet. >> Well, I mean, it's great that we have so much inroads amongst the carriers, it's great that, you know, that there's a segment that OpenStack has been able to land in. I mean, at some points when I was feeling particularly pessimistic on some days, I was like, oh man, this thing's never going to go anywhere, so that's great. On the other hand, you know, the promise that we had of sort of being the Linux operating center, operating system of the data center, and you know, really gaining inroads into private cloud and enterprise, that just hasn't materialized and I don't see a path to that. A lot of that has to do with history, I'm not sure how much of that I want to go into here, but I see those as being bright lights. I see the Ocata containers effort and sort of having this alternative structure that's more or less like the umbrella structure that I lobbied for while I was on the board. So for several years on the board, I said we need to really look more like the Apache Software Foundation, we need to look less like the Linux Operating System in terms of how we think about things. Not this big integrated monolithic release, you need more competition between projects and that just wasn't really embraced. And I think that that, in a way, that was one of several things that really kind of limited our ability to capture the market that we really wanted, which is the enterprise market. >> Yeah, well, I know, and one of those sticking points there that I've talked to you many times over the years about is how do I actually deploy this? You know, getting a base configuration and scaling this out, simplicity is tough, getting to those environments, you know, getting it up in two weeks, is good for some environments, but maybe not for others. >> Yeah, I mean I think there's sort of a spectrum, right? At one end of the spectrum, you say hey, I'm going to have a very opinionated approach like kubernetes does, and we're going to limit what we say we can do, you know, we're not all things to all people. And I think that opinionated approach, like the Linux operating system worked very, very well. And then other end of the spectrum is we've got no opinion like the Apache Software Foundation, and then it's up to vendors to go and cherry pick the pieces they want and turn that into some kind of commercial offering, whether it's Hortonworks, or Thi-dare or Du-per or whatever it is, the problem is that OpenStack wound up in the middle where it had the sort of integrated monolithic release cycle which it still does, which started to be all things to all people, and it was never as great as it could be, so it's like we got to support Hyper-V, we got to support VMware, and as the laundry list of all things we have to support grew longer, it became more and more difficult to have a compelling, easy to use, easy to scale offering that any enterprise could consume. >> Randy, a lot of talk this week about edge computing, with several different definitions, right? But it does strike me that, you know, there's a certain set of apps, that you write 'em and that they live fine in a big public cloud, and a big data center somewhere. But there's a lot of hardware that's going to be living out in the world, whether that's at the base of a radio tower, or in a wall, or in my shoe, that is going to be running hardware, and is going to be running something, and sometimes that something can be OpenStack, and we're seeing some examples of it, many examples of that already. Is that an area of growth for OpenStack? Is that an interesting part of how this fabric is going to expand? >> Well, I probably have a contrarian view here. So, I spent a bunch of time at Juniper, one of the things I worked on for a while was edge computing and we're still trying to decide what we want to do there and you know, kind of to the first point you made is everybody's edge is different, right? Is it on the mobile phone, is it back in the data center, the difference is that the real estate gets more expensive as you move out, right? And it's in terms of latency, and it's in terms of bandwidth and it's also in terms of cost of storage and compute. There's a move closer to the mobile device that becomes progressively more expensive, and so that's why a lot of people sort of look and say hey, wouldn't it be nice if we can get you out the closer lower latency and bandwidth and so on but as we looked at it, a lot of the different use cases it became really interesting in that, it wasn't clear if there was that much value between 5 milliseconds and 20 milliseconds, right? I mean, that's pretty, either one's pretty close, sure there's a lot of difference between 20 and a 100, but maybe not so much between 5 and 20. And so we kind of came to the conclusion that at least for right now, probably, the bulk of use cases are fine with 20 milliseconds, and what that means is that regional systems like AWS's Lambda at the Edge, they're in metro, those are probably good for most cases. I don't know that you need to be on the tower, I don't know that you need to be in the central office, so I think edge computing is still nascent, we don't know exactly what all those use cases are, but I think you might be able to service most of them from regional data centers, and then the question really becomes what does that stack need to be and if you have a regional data center that's got plenty of power, plenty of space, then it might be that OpenStack is a good solution, but if you're trying to scale down onto the tower, I got to have some doubts about whether OpenStack can really scale down that far. >> Randy, analytics is something we've been seeing, the networking people used for many years, at this show, starting to hear a lot of discussion about AI and ML, would love your view point as to what you're seeing in that space. >> You know I have some friends who started off in AI in very early days and he had a very pessimistic view. He said, you know this stuff comes and goes, but I'm actually very positive and optimistic about it because the way I look at this is there's a renaissance happening which is that, you know, now ML is really available to masses and you're seeing people do really interesting things like, we have a product called AppFormix, and what they do is they take ML and they apply it to operations and I love this because as an operations guy, you know, I used to have these problems in production where something would go out and the first thing I'd do, is I'm trying to do correlation and then root cause analysis, like, what was the actual failure? Like I can see the symptom on this end and now I have to get all the way back to what caused it, and the reality is that machine learning, AI techniques and protocols can do all the heavy lifting for operators very, very quickly and basically surface a problem for somebody to do the final analysis on. And so I do think that ML and AI apply to very specific vertical problems, it is just a place where we're going to see a tremendous amount of revolution in the next couple years. >> All right, and that hits right at really that intersection between kind of the developers and the operators there-- >> Absolutely. >> What are you seeing from an organizational standpoint, companies you're talking to these days, how are they doing adopting that change, dealing with that, you know, often schism or are they bringing those groups together? >> Well, I think you remember that like in the early days, I used bring my deck along and I would talk about assembly line IT versus the robotics spectrum all of IT and I would sort of make that sort of analogy to sort of the car manufacturing process, and I think what machine learning is really going to do is take us to that next level past that right? So we had the assembly line where we have all the specialists, we had the robotics factory where we had people who know how to build a robots and software, and it's really sort of like, just churning out with a lot of people on the line, and I think the next level after that is, you know, completely fully automated applications driving themselves, you know, self-driving applications, and I think that's when things get really interesting, and maybe we start to remove the traditional operator out of the equation and it really becomes about empowering developers with tools that are comfortable and that leverage all the cloud era and stuff that we built. >> All right, so Randy, you're credited with the pets versus cattle analogy, what's the latest, you were talking about some of the previous slide decks, what's Randy Bias looking on down the road? >> I mean, the stuff just comes to me, man. I can't like predict, but the thing I've been talking about a lot lately is services of platform, I think we might've talked about that last time, which is just this notion that if we look at where Amazon's invested and what's interesting, it's certainly not at the infrastructure layer and it's really not at the PAS layer, it's that thick layer in between with like database as a service and NoSQL as a service, and messaging service, and DNS and so on, where you can kind of cherry pick those things as you're assembling your own PAS for your application, and I still think that's the area that is under-discussed, and the reason is is the people back into basically doing that, building kind of the service as a platform system, but they're not like going into it, kind of like eyes wide open. >> Yeah, so just following up on that last piece, one of the criticisms I have this week is when you talk about multi-cloud, most of the people talk about, oh well people are clawing things back to their data centers. Juniper plays across the board, strong partnership with Amazon, yet you're here, what are you hearing from customers, you know, what do you see as kind of the balance there and, you know, the public cloud's role in the world? >> I mean, they're still winning, right? I don't think there's any doubt, I haven't seen a decline back here talking about, but we are starting to enter into the era of, okay, this stuff is out there, and it's running, but I need to find my governance model, I need to understand who's using what, I need to understand what it's costing me, and that's the sign of the maturation process. And so I think that, you know, we saw in the early days of cloud, people jumping the gun, creating compliance services, and you know, SAS products that would basically measure how much you're spending and think that it's time for that stuff to come back in vogue again, because the tool needs to be there for people to manage these extended supply chain of IT vendors which include the public cloud. And I think that the idea that would claw them back as opposed to like just see that as holistic part of what we're trying to accomplish doesn't make any sense. >> Well learned. Well, Randy Bias, always a pleasure to catch up with you. >> John. >> John Troyer, I'm Stu Miniman, getting towards the end of two days of three days of live coverage. Thanks for staying with the CUBE. (bubbly electronic music)