Segment who age out. Amongst that group theres a high prevalence of prison involvement. Im not sure its actually 70 . I dont have the number in front of me, but its much higher than we wouldment. By supporting youth, preparing them for aging out, when we failed them by aging out, and preparing them after the age out, that number is hopefully coming down but its still a concern. Lets go to cora in louisiana, also had experience in the foster system. Cora, good morning. Caller hi. How yall doing . Good, cora. Go ahead. Caller okay. Im calling concerning foster care and ocs. You know, you dont stand a chance. They dont help families get back together. They tear them down. When they go to court, it dont be one of them, it be a whole bunch of them. And they tell all kind of lies about you. I mean, i have experienced this. And i had a grandson in tampa florida. He was in foster care of relatives. He was raped. It was just swept under the rug like nothing. I also have a son, they took his children. The mother got on drugs. You know, he went to court trying to get his children. And i mean, they told all kind of lies on him. I never seen you know, it just shows you that you dont stand a chance. You know, whatever they say it goes. You dont have like you dont have rights or anything. And its just not right. Now, some kids need to be in foster care. And then theres some that dont belong in foster care. And they dont take time to work and investigate. They just jump up into a family, just tear it down. Rob, our last minute. , so as i said earlier, the majority of kids who come in are reunified. But we do need to do more to support birth families to prevent the need for foster care. When we started before we went on air, you mentioned to me that one of the motivations for doing this today was the hearing last week in congress. Theres been a bill introduced by senator widen from oregon to expand the federal investment for prevention services. Specifically to try to shift the emphasis of where the federal dollars are going from foster care to exactly what were talking about. Giving birth parents the services, the support they need so that children do not have to be removed. Rob is with the policy reform and advocacy director. Its aecf. Org. You can follow him on twitter acefnews. We appreciate your time this morning. Thank you. Thats our show for this friday morning. Hope you have a great weekend. Well see you back here tomorrow morning at 7 00 a. M. Coming up, google Vice President vint cerf, known as a cofounder of the internet on the future of the web and the importance of adopting new technologies to ensure internet security. After, that a discussion about the development of next generation lithiumion battery technology. Then legal and health care analysts look at the emerging industry of Online Medical care. Also known as telemedicine or telehealth, regulatory barriers and reimbursement of services and policy concerns. The cspan cities tour visits literary and Historic Sites across america every other weekend on cspan2s book tv and American History tv. With congress on its summer recess, the cities tour on cspan each day at 6 00 p. M. Today we visit omaha to learn about the literary culture of nebraskas largest city. Republican president ial candidate donald trump will be in New Hampshire tonight and well cover live a town hall that hes holding at 7 10 p. M. Eastern time in hampton. Cspan is in des moines nor the iowa state fair and road to the white house coverage of president ial candidates. Our live coverage is on cspan, cspan radio and cspan. Org as the candidates walk the fairgrounds and speak at the des moines registers campaign soapbox. Saturday, Rick Santorum at noon followed by democrats Lincoln Chafee at 12 30 and senator Bernie Sanders at 3 00. On sunday afternoon, republicans ben carson at 5 00 and George Pataki at 5 30. Cspans campaign 2016, taking you on the road to the white house. Now, google Vice President vint cerf, also known as a cofounder of the internet on the future of the web. He talks about the importance of adopting new technologies to ensure internet security, the Net Neutrality policy and backdoor encryption technology. Vint cerf is also googles chief internet evangelist who helps build the leadership with the community, as well as infrastructure, systems and standards for the next generation of internet applications. Good afternoon and welcome. My name is john hughes. Im an editor for bloomberg first word, thats our breaking news desk here in washington, and i am the president of the National Press club. We are the worlds leading organization for journalists. We are committed to our professions future through programs just like this, and we fight for a free press worldwide. For more information about the club, visit our website press. Org, and to donate to programs offered through our clubs journalism institute, visit press. Org institute. On behalf of our members worldwide, i want to welcome people in our audience to todays newsmaker luncheon. Id also like to welcome our cspan and public radio audiences. You can follow the action on twitter using npclunch. Remember, the public attends our lunches. Applause is not evidence of a lack of journalistic objectivity. After our guests speech, well have question and answer period. I will ask as many questions as time permits. Our head table includes guests of our speaker and working journalists who are club members. Id ask each person to stand briefly as names are announced. From the audiences right, pender mccarter, retired Public Relations director for ieee. Jackie kazil, former president ial innovation fellow at the white house, fema, and gsa. Bill yarnoff, Vice President of Business Development at the diplomatic courier. Tam harbert, Technology Freelancer and chair of the National Press clubs freelance committee. Jonathan fischer, Senior Editor at slate. Susan molinari, Vice President of Public Policy and Government Relations at google and a guest of our speaker. Alison fitzgerald, managing editor at the center for Public Integrity and a member of the National Press club board of governors. Skipping over our speaker for a moment, lori russo, managing director at Stanton Communications and the Speakers Committee member who organized todays lunch. Thank you, lori. Hayley tsukayama, Technology Reporter for the washington post. Tom risen, Technology Reporter for u. S. News world report. Wayne rash, Washington Bureau chief for eweek. Joshua higgins, Technology Reporter for inside washington publishers. [ applause ] so a little more than 40 years ago, the First International conference on computer communication gathered in the basement of the washington hilton. Attendees witnessed a demonstration of new technology that enabled advance applications to run between computers here in washington and others around the country. Arpanet, a network created by the advanced Research Projects agency, was the earliest version of the internet. One of those involved in the demonstration that day is todays speaker. Since then in 1972, vint cerf has developed and advanced the architecture and utility of the internet, ushered the continued spread of the web, and become one of the most widely respected authorities on internet policy and governance. Many call him a father of the internet. Since 2005, dr. Cerf has served as the chief internet evangelist for google. He says he took that moniker because they wouldnt approve the title of arch duke. Dr. Cerf is obviously well versed on the value and capabilities of the internet. Recently he voiced concern that the 21st century could become an information black hole unless we find ways to preserve photos, documents, and other Digital Content which is hard because we dont know how computers of the future will function. His solution for now, if you want to make sure that some Important Information survives for posterity, print it out. Dr. Cerfs current project is the interplanetary internet, which he is working on with nasas jet propulsion laboratory. It is exactly what it sounds like, a Computer Network for planet to planet communication. His list of awards and commendations is, as you can imagine, quite lengthy. If you want to learn more about them, youll just have to look them up on the internet. Google it please give a warm National Press club welcome to googles chief internet evangelist, vint cerf. [ applause ] well, first of all, thank you very much. This is theorem number 208 which reads, if you feed them, theyll come, and here you are and im here, too, so its my favorite theorem. Im glad we proved it again. Second, im not going to use any presentation charts or anything. My motto is power corrupts and power point corrupts absolutely so you will have to just listen to vint instead. I did want to tell you a little anecdote which i think is relevant to especially this population. I worked on something called mci mail way back in the 1980s. We turned it on on september 27th, 1983, and among the first people to sign up for this electronic mail service were reporters, one of whom was william f. Buckley, and i maintained a lovely correspondence with bill over time before he passed away, and i remember that i had come and gone to mci, left to join bob kahn and then rejoined mci to help them get into the internet business. In around 2003 it was clear that charging people for email wasnt exactly a great Business Model anymore, so we shut down the mci mail service, and i got a whole bunch of angry emails from reporters who said, i have had my mci mail address since 1983, how can you do that . But the honest answer was it was time for that service to go. So i have two themes that i would like to address this afternoon. The first one has to do with technology, and i will drop into geek a bit. I apologize but its the only way to be precise. And then i want to talk a little bit about policy. So i have eight points or so on the tech side and four or five points on the policy side. So let me start on the technology side. Im really proud of the fact that the internet continues to evolve. This is not a design which was fixed in time 40 years ago but rather its one which has adapted to new technology. It has swept in new communications capability. It has become an important element of the smartphone, both the internet and the smartphones and the World Wide Web are all mutually reinforcing in many, many ways. So one of the things that bob and i didnt quite get right was the amount of numerical address space thats needed in the internet. When we designed it 40 years ago, we did some calculations and estimated that 4. 3 billion terminations ought to be enough for an experiment. And so the version of the network that most of you are using is called ip version 4 or tcip version 4, which was designed back around that time. Well, we got it wrong. We ran out of the ip version 4 experimental address space around 2011. The ceo of aaron, the American Registry for internet numbers. Is right over there, jon curran. You can wave at him. If you need ip addresses, hes the guy to talk to. Im proud to serve on their board. But we need ip 6 now which has 128 bits of address space. Ill do the math. Its 3. 4 times ten to the 38th addresses. This is a number only the congress can appreciate. But it is absolutely vital we get all of the isps to turn ipv 6 on. The software is in your laptops and desktops and mobiles but the Internet Service providers need to turn it on in parallel with the ip version 4 service. Which many of you are using today. So, you can do me two favors. One, as individuals, talk to your isps and demand an answer, when i am going to get ipv 6 addresses . I want dates and times. And second, as reporters, will you kindly dot same thing, but do it with the megaphone afforded to you by the fourth estate. Why do i care about having lots more ip addresses . One answer is the next wave of stuff is the internet of things. You all know that, but this is real. Every appliance that you can possibly imagine is shifting from electromechanical controls to programmable controls. Once you put a computer inside of anything, theres an opportunity to put it on the net. Now, there are good thing and bad things about that. The good thing about the internet is everything is connected. The bad thing about the internet is everything is connected. So we really need the address space in order to accommodate this explosion of devices. Cisco says there may be 50 billion devices by 2020, and they may not be as crazy as it sounds because every lightbulb could potentially has its own ip address. Some of them already do, like the lightbulbs made by phillips, hue, you can control the color and light intensity from your mobile and to do that you need an internet address. We need to get ipv 6 implemented. Thats the First Technology point. The second one is even more obscure, the label is buffer bloat, and you might think, okay, so what is this . When youre watching streaming videos, have you ever noticed sometimes they get real jerky and things slow down and the delays are going up and you sit there waiting for things to reload. It turns out it is not true that having more buffer memory space is always a good thing. Let me explain. You have a router at home typically, maybe supplied by cable or telco company. Or maybe you bought one and installed it or hired a geek to do that. So this thing has memory in it and imagine for a moment that youre running a local network at home and its running at maybe 100 megabits a second or maybe 10 megabits or maybe a gigabit per second but the connection you have out to the rest of the world is not running that fast. Unless you happen to be on one of the google Fiber Networks in which case youre getting a gigabit per second, but most of them dont quite get to that speed. So what happens . The program you have running inside the house is pushing data like crazy into this buffer which is filling up and emptying slowly because the data rate on the other end is slower than the rate at which youre pumping it in. There are increasing amounts of delay from the standpoint of the sender waiting to hear acknowledgements coming back from the other end. At some point the Program Inside your house is saying, oh, my god, they didnt get what i sent, i better send it again. You keep resending and you create a highly congestive condition. What you have to do is design the system so that it doesnt put too much buffer space in the path. It should put only enough to deal with the differential between the high speed and low speed side. Of course, this also works in the other direction. So there is here is the code word for you. The letters that you want to refer to are called codelfq. Codel dash fq. You could say also by the way i want codel fq in my router and i want a poodle. Want a pony. Okay. Next point, all of you are familiar with the fact were really bad at picking passwords and some of us still use password for a passwords because thats easy to remember but everybody else knows that so thats not a good thing. So youre told please make up complicated passwords with punctuation and other stuff and keep changing them all the time and you can never remember them so you make a list and stick it on your computer or put it in your wallet. Okay. So at google you will remember and some of you reported that we were attacked in 2010 and penetrated, and so we decided we needed to do something about that. So in addition to user name and password, which we still ask people to change on a regular basis, we also have a piece of hardware. It is called a gnubby, and dont ask me why. This i have no idea. This little gadget is a two factor authentication device. Essentially it generates a random one time password using a cryptographic algorithm. When i log into my google accounts, and you could do this too using g mail, when you log in if youre acting for two factor authentification. If you have this device you tickle it because the light came on and it sends the data back and forth or it sends you a random number to your mobile or you have an algorithm running in the mobile that generates the random number for you. All of those cases imply you had to have this other thing, your mobile or the little gnubby device or a message coming from google giving you the latest onetime password in addition to knowing your user name and password. Thats what its two factor authentication. It means if somebody got your user name and password they cant get in because they dont have the second factor. We would like to encourage everyone to adopt that practice because that will make the network safer for you and for me. Fourth point, security is and safety and privacy are really important in the net, and one way to achieve that in part is to use whats called https, hypertext transport protocol is what was invented in 1989 and it was released as part of the worldwide web. Theres a secure version of this. Called https and the purpose behind it is to encrypt the traffic between you, your laptop, desktop, mobile, tablet, and the server on the other end, google in my case. And so the idea here is that everyone should be making use of this cryptographic means of transmitting data back and forth. While. You are using webbased applications, the information is kept in encrypted form and only decrypted when it reaches the other end. So this is called encryption for transmission. Which leads me to the fifth point which is that google and others believe that all transmissions regardless of whether its from your edge device to our services or between our data centers or any other place ought to be encrypted in order to protect confidentiality. And so we see crypto as a very, very Important Technology which should be incorporated into normal use on the net. I know i dont have very much time so i wont tell you stories about how i worked with nsa way back in 1975 to design and build a secured internet. The only problem was that the details were classified at the time and i couldnt share it with any of my colleagues. I felt schizophrenic for a time. Now we have the Technology Available to make it a more confidential environment. We think also its important to encrypt data once it lands in place. Your laptops should be encrypted. Your disk drives should be encrypted. Your mobiles should be encrypted. We encrypt data that lands in our data center as we move it back and forth between the data centers. We keep it encrypted so even if the data center were penetrated or you lost your laptop or your tablet, the information will be very hard for someone to extract. So crypto is important. The seventh point is dns set. You know what the dough name system is because you use domain name is because you use them all the time. This is a security extension. How do i do this in a couple seconds . When you do a look up of a domain name, you may not see that happening but when you type www. Google. Com, your computer says where the hell is that on the net . I need a number and it looks it up in the Domain Name System which is a big distributed database. It gets back an ip numerical address. So these two pieces of information, domain name and ip address, are very important. Now, what happens if somebody can go in and change the numeric address associated with the domain name . You may think youre logging into bank of america. Com, but if somebody has hacked the system, youre off to some bad site which is extracting your user name and password and everything else. So the solution to this problem is to use something called a Digital Signature. Some of you have heard the term public key cryptography. We can digitally sign the binding between the domain name and the ip address. So when you get that pair back from doing the query, you can check, did anybody change the binding . Has anybody altered the numerical part . And by checking the Digital Signature you can verify it has not been modified. This protects against all kinds of spoofing kinds of attack that is would otherwise be of harm. So we think dns should be implemented. It is being implemented throughout the Domain Name System but we need more implementation as it goes down into the hierarchy. The eighth thing on the geek side, its bcp38. What the hell is that . This is best communication practices number 38. Basically what this says is that if you are operating a network and you are going to accept traffic from people that will eventually be sent out to the rest of the internet, the first thing you should do is check to see whether the source internet address, the numerical internet address thats coming from whoever is giving the traffic, is coming from a legitimate source. Is it really coming from a network that owns that address space or is responsible for that address space . And so bcp38 basically says dont let traffic into the net that has fake source addresses. Its possible to fake the source address by just stating this is coming from that place over there even though its coming from here. We dont want people to do that so we think again the isps should be executing that bcp38 thing. So you can tell that i have a very strong message which i ask you to amplify to tell the isps time to get on the stick to improve the safety, security, and confidentiality of the net. Okay. Now well switch over to policy and they told me they were going to tell me when this thing was going to die. What does it say . It says i have 19 minutes left . It says its 19 after so youve got 3. 5 seconds. 7 minutes. Okay. Eight things in seven minutes. First of all, some of you, i hope, are reading about and some of you may be write being that the ntia has to transfer whatever responsibilities it still retains to the Internet Corporation for assigned names and numbers. The multistakeholder bodies of the internet, all of us, become part of the operation of policy develop for the internet rather than having a specific agency of the u. S. Government taking responsibility for that. When the ican was created in 1998, that was the intent. There was supposed to a two or three year period where everybody settled down and then the thenntia would relinquish responsibility for any further direct interaction. Well, its been some years since 1998. Its now time, and ntia has proposed to do that. Its asked the community to show how it would operate without the benefit of this ntia oversight, and so although there is controversy over this, i am a strong believer that we should the government should step away from this special responsibility or authority and return this to the community which has created and operated the internet since its inception. Thats point number one. Second, i cant imagine you would disagree that freedom of expression and access to information is absolutely fundamental to our democratic societies and we need to make sure that the internet continues to support that. Id like to add one more freedom to this and thats freedom from harm. We dont often speak about that, but unless people fell they are safe in using the internet, then they will not use it, and if they dont, then some companies Business Models, including mine, may very well be undermined. So its very, very important in addition to the freedom of expression and assembly and access to information that we do everything we can to protect people from harm, which is why i was talking about all those other geek things a little while ago. Point number three has to do with nondiscrimination and in particular none of the isps or the broadband providers should have anything at all to say about where the traffic comes from and where its going. Everybody should have equal access to the net. You should have the ability to go anywhere you want to on the net and in principle do whatever it is you want to do. Of course, if it turns out to be illegal, thats a different problem. But none of the providers of access to this system should be telling you what you can and cant do. So thats a nondiscrimination element. Thats showing up in the Net Neutrality orders that have come from the fcc. Preserving user choice is fundamental again to the internets utility. Similarly the fourth item on the policy list is equal access to performance features. If you have the need for low latency because youre playing some kind of video game or you need high bandwidth because youre streaming video, you should have access to that. There shouldnt be possible for the broadband provider to pick and choose who gets access to that and who doesnt. This should be openly available to everyone. I didnt say free, but what i said is everyone should have equal access to those capabilities. And finally, i think its very important that we encourage not only here in the u. S. But everywhere around the world the adoption of policies that would encourage the creation of more internet. Now, of course, id say that. But, look, here is my problem. At google my job is to get more internet built all around the world and in talking to eric schmidt the other day, he said, you know, you cant retire. And i said why not . He said, well, youre only half done. You have 3 billion people up. You have another 4 billion people to go. So i could use some help in case any of you are interested. We really need to help countries recognize the importance of investment in internet infrastructure for the benefit of their citizens, and so that is my fifth and last point on policy and since i am clearly over time, i will stop there, mr. Chairman, and turn the floor over to you to ask grilling questions. Thank you. [ applause ] thank you. Thank you very much. The internet was created by the u. S. Defense advanced Research Projects agency or darpa and now it is global yet no one really owns the internet. Is it possible that a multistakeholder governance environment can actually work . Boy, that was a nice gimme. Thank you for that one. I appreciate it. First of all, hes right. Darpa did sponsor this initially. The answer is absolutely yes and how can i possibly prove that . Well, we turned the internet on on january 1st, 1983. Okay, do the math. How long ago was that . 1983. 32 years. Now, who do you suppose was actually running it at that point . It wasnt the Defense Department. I was sitting actually i had left the Defense Department. I was off at mci doing mci mail at the time, but my colleagues were parts of universities. They were in the private sector running, building, and operating pieces of the internet, and its been that way ever since. It has always been the private sectors role to build and operate these pieces. Of course, the Defense Department has pieces of its own. So does the National Science foundation and nsf nsf doesnt run the nsf net anymore. They started it in 1986 and they shut it down in 1995 and they didnt need it anymore because there were commercial services available. The private sector and the Civil Society and the Technical Community and the Academic Community and governments all have a responsibility, including you, to be part of the policymaking apparatus for the internet. The things that you do to protect your own safety and security and privacy affect me, too, because if you dont do a good job, then you become an avenue through which attacks can be made and phishing attacks occur and access to things that shouldnt be accessed by the wrong parties happen. So we all have this shared responsibility to make policy decisions about the internet. The enforcement of policy could be the responsibility of specific organizations and individuals and the like, but the policy making thing should be multistakeholder. As far as i can tell that has been working for the last 32 years, and it can continue to work if you just let it. Next question. Got several questions about hacking and, you know, the white house and the state department have had networks hacked. Will there come a day when such hacks are not possible and someone else wonders who is responsible for Cyber Security . Who ultimately can stop the hacks from happening . The answer lies in the previous response as well because we are all responsible for improving the safety and security of the internet. Your own choices, your practices, the practices of the Internet Service providers are all part of this fabric that we have to maintain. Theres a visual model i have in my head. Imagine that you have a set of homes whose backyards are all shared so theres this big kind of a park and the front doors go out this way going outward. Imagine theres some nincompoop who inn cysts on leaving his house unlocked. Even if all the houses are locked, one guys lets someone into the interior. We all have a role to play to make it more secure and safe. There are different places in the internets architecture where attacks can be launched. This is a very layered system. And so the mechanisms that might work at one layer may have no effect at another. Ill give you an example. Suppose somebody says, the solution to email problem is that we should encrypt everything and so as long as we encrypt the email as it goes through the net, everything will be okay. Well, okay. Lets analyze this a little bit. The source of the email using a laptop which has become infected somehow. Maybe they plugged in a usb that was infected or they stuck in a dvd or maybe they went to a website that had malware on board. So this computer which you dont know or the user doesnt know is infected composes a piece of email with malware in it. Then we encrypt it. Its great. It goes all the way through the net, nobody is see anything, it gets to the end and its decrypted and the malware does the damage. So crypto at one lever does not solve all the problems. We have to put prevention in various layers in the system using various and sundry technologies. So in a very its kind of an odd ball answer here but its sort of everybodys responsibility to do this, but each layer and each provider of service at those layers has a responsibility just as we do at google. Were way up in the application space and were doing everything we can to protect against the kinds of attacks which could be launched against our layers of the architecture, but there are other layers below us, the ones doing transport, that also need to contribute to the safety of the system. Right now we use social and Credit History to verify our legal identity. If Social Security numbers didnt exist, what would Identity Verification look like and is there a better way to do Identity Verification . The short answer is yes. Would you like me to elaborate . So, first of all, Social Security numbers were not intended to be identifiers used in commerce, right . But they are. Or the last four digits which is almost worse. Second, the Social Security numbers dont have any check digits for anything. Theres no way to tell whether this is a valid or invalid Social Security number. Its just nine digits. We could do a lot better, especially with todays technology. One possible would be to issue a certificate which identifies a public key that belongs to you and to you alone. And what you would want is to have the private key that goes with it. This is public key crypto stuff. This is this weird stuff that my friends came up with in 1977. Its kind of like a door with two locks. You have two keys, one key locks the door but it doesnt unlock it. So you have sthees these two different cryptographic keys that Work Together to create security. So you can imagine having an identifier that has been digitally signed by an authority that would issue those identifiers. That authority could be a State Government because thats where the ssns come from or it i guess its a federal government but the states issue these things by does anybody know the answer to that . Is it correct that the states issue the Social Security numbers but they do so the federal government does it. Okay. Thank you. So the federal government could issue these certificates and as long as the Digital Signature works, this is a way of validating yourself remotely. Somebody could send you a challenge saying, are you really vint cerf with this public key . If they encrypt that in my public key, only i can decrypt it in my private key just like the only guy who can unlock the door with the private key. And then i could send a response back to that party using that partys public key to encrypt the response. So we can verify that each of us has a credential issued by the federal government that has a public and private key associated with it. Its more complex than that, but we dont have time to go into all the details but thats the essence of what could happen. It would be a lot better. By the way, here is another opportunity for policy. If we could agree on an international basis about the bona fides that have to be shown before you get one of these credentials, then we might be able to make a Digital Signature as significant and as authoritative as a wet signature is today, but we have to agree on a global scale what bona fides have to be presented in order to get this authorizing Digital Signature and certificate. I think that would be a really good thing to do because it would encourage ecommerce and it would also give us some protection against the abuse of our Social Security numbers. So thats the long answer. In addition to printing out our photos, what else should we as a society be doing to preserve information . That is, preserve our culture for future generations . Thats a great question. I really didnt say print everything, but some people who are in the business of printing photographs decided thats what i said. And you cant blame them. Printed photography has gotten kind of different from all of the stuff you see on flickr and everything else. Here is the problem. Every single day when you use software in your laptops or desktops and what have you, you create complex files. If youre using a text document editor, microsoft word or Something Else, the file that you create is actually a pretty complex object. And in order to correctly render it or allow the document to be edited, you need a piece of software to help you. Thats the Application Program. Now, i want you to imagine that its the year, you know, 2150, and youre Doris Kearns Goodwins great, great granddaughter, and you want to write about the beginnings of the 21st century. You remember Doris Kearns Goodwin wrote that wonderful story about lincoln, his team of rivals. If you read it, i hope you had the same reaction i did. The dialogue seemed very plausible. The opinions that were being stated and the words that were being used made it seem like she must have been a fly on the wall 150 years ago. Of course she wasnt, she went to 100 different libraries and collected the physical correspondence of the principals and used that to recreate the dialogue of the time. Now imagine its 2150 and youre trying to write about the beginning of the 21st century and you cant find a damn thing because all the email has evaporated or worse you have these giant disks full of bits that represent the email, but the Application Program and the operating system it ran on and the hardware that the operating system animated dont work anymore. Theyre gone, nobody has supported them. You have a pile of rotten bits on your hands. I want to prevent that from happening. There are only a few ways i know of to do it. The best way i have seen so far, i lectured about this with my partners at Carnegie Mellon last week at stanford university, this guy i practiced so hard to say that. We call him satya for obvious reasons. Hes developed a Virtual Machine capability that will allow him to emulate hardware pretty much of any kind and then run the operating systems on that emulated machine and then run the application on the emulated operating system and it works. He demonstrated. This is not slide ware. He showed 20 different emulations of different machines and different operating systems and, my god, he was showing me 1997 turbotax running on a mac including the crappy graphics and everything else. It was really a phenomenal performance. So the ability to preserve Software Applications and operating systems and emulate the hardware is exactly the best answer so far. Imagine running those emulations in the cloud so that those machines are available to anyone. This is not a trivial technical problem and also there is intellectual property issues. How do i get ahold of the software . What rights can i get . What if i have the object code and im running it on the cloud and somebody says, you cant do that because they didnt pay. Its 150 years since you did anything with that software, you know. Give me a break. You remember what happened when the xerox machines were created and the librarians said people should have the right to copy a limited amount of material this way and the publishers were saying no, no, no. People ill publish one book and people will make xerox copies and i will never make any money. That didnt happen. And this ability to employ fair use was very important. We need a preservation use like that associated with copyright so that preservation as an act is not only sanctioned but encouraged so that our Digital Content will survive over long periods of time. Thats my long answer to that question. Combine a couple questions here. In 1979 bob kahn urged you to create a brain trust in case you got hit by a bus and couldnt continue your work. Who do you view as the brain trust today and part two of that is do you feel there is enough Technical Expertise or even consultation with Technology Experts among those who Craft Technology policy . So who is the brain trust and is the brain trust being consulted like it should in Technology Policy . Okay. So the answer to the last part is no. The answer to the first part is that the original group that i created at bobs request was called the internet configuration control board. Iccb. We made it as boring as possible so nobody would want to be a member of that board and then i appointed the people who were the lead researchers on the development of the internet at multiple universities around the u. S. And so the iccf morphed into the internet activities boards around 1985, later became the internet architecture board and now the internet architecture board and the around Engineering Task force and the Internet Research task force, all of which are housed in the internet society, are the brain trust for the technical evolution of the internet. Its where the bulk of the new protocols are coming from. This is not to disenfranchise various corporate entities that are trying to develop new protocols and applications for the net. But the core of internets evolution still comes from that brain trust. I have lived here in washington since 1976, and i have considered it to be both a privilege and a responsibility to try to help policymakers understand enough about the internet so that policies they make make some sense. And, you know, im not looking for Technical Depth here. Im looking for simple cartoon models of how the Network Works that are Accurate Enough so if you reason with those simple the original group that i created at bobs request was double the speed of light or abandoned the law of gravity. Our job is to try to be helpful, to provide clear enough explanations for how this stuff works so that when policy gets developed, it actually is implementable and makes sense. The worst thing in the world is to pass laws that cant be enforced or cant be implemented because it encourages disrespect for the law, and thats not a good thing. Looking over the past two decades or so, what are the one or two developments in the internet that you are most pleased with and most disappointed with . Well, starting with the last one, spam is a kind of a disappointment. I have to have say, im very proud of my company, google, because weve done a very good job of filtering out an awful lot of spam. If you happen to be using gmail, if you ever looked at your spam folder, its amazing how much stuff you didnt have to look at, especially how to enlarge body parts and all that stuff. So its an annoying side effect that email is essentially free. So, it means the spammers dont have to pay for what they do. And there are crazy ideas like charge 0. 002 cents for every email. Its not enforceable, so forget that. So, spam is annoying but, you know, there are ways of filtering it out. The thing with which i was most astonished by proud is a very funny word to use here. In fact, let me go down an alley for a moment. Some of you have kids, right . You might have learned what i learned, which is dont take too much credit for when your kids do well, so when they screw up, you dont have to take too much blame. And so, you know, i think that, you know, proud is the wrong word to use about internet. Im just grateful to have been part of this story. However, with regard to surprises, when the worldwide web showed up in 1989, no one really noticed except tim and some of his colleagues, but when the mosaic browser showed up around 1993, this was absolutely astonishing because it turned the internet into a magazine. It had imagery and color and formatted text. It was really quite eyeopening. On top of that, the browsers had this feature that if you wanted to see how the web page was built, you could ask the browser to show you the html. The hypertext markup language. So this was open. Everybody could copy everybodys web pages, and they did. Then they found new ways of making them more interesting. So the webmaster was a kind of role which didnt exist before the worldwide web, and it was sort of enhanced by the fact that everybody could share each others web pages and how they were built. So the thing that astonished me was the amount of content that poured into the net once web browsers and html was available. It was just astonishing how much information people wanted to share, not because they wanted to be paid, but they wanted to know that their information was useful to somebody else. So you hear this story about information is power. Nonsense. Its information sharing thats power. Weve seen it, and weve seen it over the past 20 years. Were going to see it over the next 20 years, maybe the next 20 decades too. So the thing that i like the most about the internet is that it is evolvable. It is scaleable. Its well over a million times bigger than it was when we turned it on. There arent too many protocols that will allow you to do that kind of scaling. And it has invited creativity. We use the term permissionless innovation very deliberately. You dont have to get permission from every isp in the world to invent a new product or a service and put it up on the net, and it should stay that way. This questioner says you are said to have been a candidate for the office of u. S. Chief technology officer. Wants to know if you would have taken that job. Really, a larger question also is, would you consider moving over to the government side to help sort out some of these issues in some kind of senior role, if offered . Wow. So this is a hypothetical, mr. Chairman. So first of all, the answer is there were news reports i might have been on the list. I dont actually know. I consulted with some of my friends, including eric. Eric said, you know, why dont you just be the chief Technology Officers best friend . So i made good friends with him and his successor and of course megan, whos now there as cto. Whos now there as cto. And i thought that was pretty good advice. Now, i have served in the government. I served six years at dar baa. I enjoyed that time. It was an empowering moment for me. It was a period of time where i work with incredibly smart people. But my whole career has been that way. I mean, im at google surrounded by incredibly smart people. Most smarter than i am. And i learn that every single day especially when the 25yearolds run over and say when are we do x for some value of x, and ill sit here thinking we tried that 25 years ago and then it didnt work. Then i have to remember 25 years ago theres a reason why it didnt work. And that reason may no longer be valid. It could be that computers are cheaper, faster, theres more memory, Something Else is economically feasible that wasnt before. I have been forced to rethink my own views on these things over and over and over again. And let me tell you nothing keeps you younger than having to rethink your own positions instead of falling into a rut. So for me i think i dont feel the need to become part of the government. But i want very much to have an opportunity to provide support and help if i can. And i will do that if im allowed. Do you want to see Congress Pass the usa freedom act . And Congress Just had a hearing on encryption focusing on privacy rights versus Law Enforcements desire for a back door into cell phones, et cetera. What do you think congress should do . Wow. So, first of all, this back door idea is indicative of a real tension here. I mean, this global system is used and abused like a lot of technology. There isnt anything about the technology that determines whether or not its a constructive or destructive use. Its just a neutral tool. And some people abuse it. And so we have to do something. I mean, we wish to protect the citizens of our country and others from harm in this network. And so you have to ask yourself, well, how can i do that . What steps can i take . And the tension pretty obviously is that if you use things like cryptography to protect privacy and confidentiality, which im sure every one of you cares about, theres this question about what the Law Enforcement people and what can they do . And the proposal to put back doors into things is reminiscent of Something Else some of you will have reported on the clipper chip back in the 90s. I was absolutely adamantly against the clipper chip idea. And the reason was very simple. If you have a back door, somebody will find it. And that somebody may be a bad guy. Or bad guys. And they will intentionally abuse their access. So creating this kind of technology is super, super ri y risky. So i dont think thats the right answer. You know, at the same time i accept the governments are there in part to protect their citizens from harm. So the question is how do you do that . And theres this spectrum. Imagine that on one end we live in a society where there is no privacy at all. Everything is known. Everything youre planning to do is known. It might be a very safe society to live in, but it might not be one you want to live in. On the other hand what about a society where theres absolute privacy, nobody knows what youre planning to do at all and bad stuff happens . So you feel that your privacy is protected but your safety has now been diminished. There must be some place in between, and it isnt the same place for everyone, it isnt the same place for every culture and isnt the same place for every nation. Our job in the u. S. Is to figure out where is that balance for us. And i think the congress is forced now to struggle with that. And theyre going to have to listen to these various arguments about protection and safety on the one hand and preservation and privacy and confidentiality on the other. Im not persuaded that Building Back doors is the right way forward. The way the fccs title 2 Net Neutrality rules are written, do you think they offer equal opportunity download speeds while fore bearing enough title 2 rules to avoid government overreach like new fees or content regulation . So this is a really interesting problem some of youve lived through this for a couple of decades. I think that tom wheeler didnt have a whole lot of choice. The fcc had asserted a set of neutrality rules, which were intended to protect user choice. And they were essentially told by the Supreme Court you do not have the legal basis to enforce your Network Neutrality preferences. And so i think wheeler had three possibilities. One, do nothing. In which case the Net Neutrality notions to the extent people agree that they are helpful and useful and preserve user choice would simply not succeed because of the lack of legal basis for fccs enforcement. The second possibility would have been to get the congress to create a new title in the Telecommunications Act specific to internet. Now, some of you will remember there was a brand x decision. The Cable Companies and the Telephone Companies were saying we are not regulated the same way. This is correct. Theres two different titles in the telecom act for dealing with these entities. And yet they were both providing Internet Service. And the complaint was were providing Internet Service under Different Ground rules, this isnt fair. The question is what to do. One possibility might have been to get congress to adopt an internet title that was appropriate to the internet technology. The choice that was made instead was to treat internet as if its just an Information Service that had no layered structure, had no telecommunications component. It was just an Information Service, end of story. Well, that led to thats an unregulated title. So the fcc rule was completely removed. Tom chose a third path. And that was to invoke the title 2 which had been the fcc had the authority, in my view, remembthey had the authority to decide it was title 1. They have equal authority to decide no, no, its really title 2, but constrained. Significantly. So whats the issue here . Well, now under this current rule they have a basis for taking action if they think that the neutrality rules have been violated. However, there is this potential forward looking risk what happens if some new fcc and some future game decides to invoke all of the messy complexities of title 2, which were designed for a system for voice communication. Which is a far cry from todays internet and probably very much a far cry from tomorrows internet. So at some point this tactic probably has to be readdressed so that were going to do anything at all in the regulatory space, it needs to be tailored to a network. Which i want to emphasize again must still be evolvable, it must be possible to add new products and services to it. We should not constrain the network. You know, simply in order to regulate it. We need to find a way to make sure that the network is fairly treats you fairly, gives you adequate opportunity, incites competition, but at the same time allows the fcc to protect your interests. So thats where my head is. And i hope as former congresswoman that you think i have managed to straddle this reasonably well. I mentioned in the introduction that at the National Press club we fight for press freedom worldwide. Yeah and part of your job is evangelizing the internet worldwide. What do you say to governments and regimes who consider the internet a threat . And what can you do to try to shake that loose . I wish i could just say get over it. But that doesnt work. Lets take everybody picks on china, so i guess ill do that too. But they are a good example of a tension. I actually have some sympathy for the Chinese Government. You realize that there are 650 million chinese on the internet now . Thats like over a third of their yeah, more than a third of their population, close to a half. And so this means that the Chinese Government and the private sector there have been investing in enormous amount in Building Infrastructure for the internet. Fiber networks, they were very early on into the ip 6 space by the way, bang, bang. So, you know thr, this is even better. So they have made this big investment. At the same time they come from a long history of very authoritarian practices. So, you know, theyre scared frankly about this Large Population of people becoming unhappy. And if you study chinese history, which i have not, i am told that the last seven times there was a major regime change in china is because it was preceded by a peasant rebellion. And looking at all the conditions throughout china, especially on the west, you can appreciate things are really, you know, scary for the Administration Even if theyre trying to do the right thing, which is to make sure people are fed and housed and everything else. So my story is that the countries that are seeking authoritarian control over the internet will discover at some point that if they do that, theyre shooting themselves in the foot. First of all, theyre potentially inhibiting the creativity of the popu