together and be able to compete with anyone else. so, i am always asking them to strive for excellence. it's harder to shut the door in your face when you've got a great voice, when you're the best reporter and come back with the best story, when you have stories that affect people and things like that, it's hard to say no to somebody who's excellent, so i want them to be excellent. >> host: great. thank you so much for doing this. we've got to wrap this up. a delightful and conversation and i thank you for being here. >> guest: thank you, nia. .. >> based on my experience to provoke an rage and disturbed that would keep me upset we will figure out by the end which half are this cyber realist. but i could not be more delighted to congratulate you on the publication of the book that has been interesting for us to take shape over the last couple years. we have watched the live action on the internet and such that we have gone from the early days a couple years ago where we were out there and wondering and thinking that there was something called a twitter revolution although flash forward to today not only are we here to celebrate the public -- publication of your book "the net delusion" the dark side of internet freedom" it tells you where he came down on that prior reminded once again house circular our conversations are and here we have the would be twitter revolution into the judge just this afternoon. i think we will jump right into the middle of the conversation with evgeny but i have to ask you, first, about tunisia. can we ever have bay twitter revolution in your estimation? or is it in order to become cyber realistic we have to give up all of our utopian and revolutionary fantasies about the power of the internet? >> it depends on what you mean. if you look at what happened before, twitter and social media, later, some people began wondering may be the actual impact was publicizing from angola and that happen to and if you fast forward too now what is happening in two visa also twitter but "the new york times" did a story broke it is very hard to think about what the twitter revolution is when you have a constantly changing discussion. if you look at iran and the twitter revolution there, again, it was instrumental and a quote from andrew sullivan that made a lot from those around him and basically helped it to take shape but later they fortify their position to say it was not used to mobilize but you know, , again, it was the factor factor-- the mobile factor they are still blocking and tweet everything they see but i have not seen much hope from what is available yet to from twitter or any other technology was the main driver. and the fact the government is constantly have gained into the facebook accounts, g-mail, which was a very surprising factor and i am just not sure it is a driver but it still matters. >> host: going back in time why did you decide to ride the book -- right to the book from your own cyber utopianism and you're more realistic take on what the internet can do from political freedom? >> was born and raised. >> host: not chernobyl. [laughter] >> guest: close. a small mining town actually. i was born and raised their the subject was dear to me in part because i watch very closely and to a large extent, that was as far as i was concerned. back in 2005 and in the role the media comply with a political change, remember, that was one year or so after the presidential elections here and people were talking about what obama could accomplish with social media and social networks would be instrumental to mobilize. also just with the enthusiasm in my a particular part of the world thought the protest and have been in serbia and georgia and ukraine same thing have been belarus but then the you end up with the assumptions that social media will actually play a huge role in the democratized world. so my first big out of college was the ngo based on using new media also democratic reform sell my eighth job was traveling around and meeting with journalists and talking to them about the media how they can use blogs -- blogs and social networks for those that were very optimist six how they could put the internet to good use. and light publicizing corruption are blocking about the environment and i spent roughly three years doing that finding dose who were eager from the legitimate agenda and with society those who were making assumptions about the power of the internet too and i spent a few years doing that i started seeing not having the desired outcome are making famous worse in part because there was very little thought creating such a media project. but most have third reading on their round. then you have the u.s. agents coming with money in it gave incentive up to a point* where they stop innovating and they have a slightly different speed knowing if they fail in the first place. i started to have second thoughts on the viability of many of the ngos if that was the first alarm but then started to look closely how the government itself was responding and in the very beginning it was boring banning pages and you are rose and over the few years starting to do the work is supposed to become much more sophisticated with the cyber attacks on the web sites and with the entrepreneurs and loggers, it involved buying technology from the west and in the case of russia for example, to have the oligarch kremlin the company that was leading companies. [inaudible] negative changes of ownership. very little of that was chronicled. so we began to see more things about filtering and those more sophisticated ways but i don't think that what was any systematic and this is how i came to the subject because i realize many people in the media but also in terms of the assumptions that they made ms. ross so the ways in which have they will undermine the norm. so we decided to focus more for the opportunity as much as they could but also started with the blog it was more or less empirical work from the ngo. >> host: do you think it was a green revolution and if iran? but when you came to see the consequences of getting it wrong and politically? >> guest: it was definitely a tipping point* in terms of understanding of our assumptions of the internet and found very politically but much earlier [inaudible] to examine the space much more analytical. but i never had much action to the government side until 2009 in part because the agent, you say it but what is active in this space, it was never systematized and i am not sure there was a master plan to get it accomplished. and they fit into the broader project but the action of obama where should they and all things media and it was this much more of a push for the digital space. in 2009 for those who tried to sell american technologies' i think 2009 and then of course, the twitter protests that i go into more detail and the book eventually january 2010 which was the final five that convince me with the second dimension that is not just examining the government and the internet but the american political establishment thinks for their own agenda. >> host: in its own way your argument is the internet freedom agenda is as miscast as the bush freedom agenda with the unintended consequences with the u.s. government policy. once people start to wrap their hand at -- heads around of the above the administration is politicizing something up until now they themselves see this as a tool not just the power projections by the united states. is that how you think they got into grupo and g-mail a few years ago? >> yes. but one issue, we all know the support of democracy before it was called the freedom agenda. and readjust up outlined up until now those who are actually using the media space-bar for so what i think happens the u.s. government overshot the mark. probably the state department saw. [inaudible] however before i get into that, remember the agenda itself that speech itself it is much more accurate than the actual framework. but the problem with that to, it is examined in conjunction with all of the other forces of the u.s. government and state department so the one big dinner the state department ceo or silicon valley. all of those defense they get locked into one. and the big cyberattack of china and google and digitize the archives of the national museum, the story's basically interconnect and ways with government did not foresee. but my bigger thought of the agenda they just did not succeed in building any reasonable connections from u.s. government policy on the internet and it became obvious from wikileaks said many people found that to be hypocritical and that came from senators and someone from the state bar men but it was interpreted as a after the at wikileaks happened, it just did not correspond to the actual actions or the climate. >> host: just to clarify to because people would be interested coming you see the internet freedom agenda is compatible with how the government has responded to wikileaks. what is your own thought if it represents a disturbing new trend is something we should welcome and how does it fit into your analysis? >> >> guest: [inaudible] it did not have its own identity it keeps changing. but with the entire conceptual idea look at the initial approach, that i think, those in the book called community wikipedia is the guide to success. we all have enough time and if you look at the early statements from assange and his comments in 2010 with the journalism of people coming together to cooperate and those that published with the media but the first time and so forth, in terms of their approach to the relationship change of political and social but i still did not fully understand the value of wikileaks of the organization bring this the car asset and technology and up from and the newspaper end to go on to the website, so the question is, where does it add value? ends of to contact the media and a journalist and the ngos. and there are some which they can make the argument but if you do something about corruption in azerbaijan, the chances are you know, what to look for the fact "the washington post" carries the front-page story there's not much of a difference but my point* is i do not see what is the value of the process is all about disrupting intermediaries. and there ideology is to start building those so the future of wikileaks itself might argue that assange should become movement for building the ever structure and the movement is the merging on the demesne management system with a payment system and the posting system they're all merging to a great extent from the u.s. government of wikileaks. people understood that is probably safe to have the u.s. government to be the most powerful intermediaries because it would be the closest to pursue them so assange maybe works more on those projects and their usefulness. >> host: you point* out a very interesting, and the u.s. peace of this but what are the consequences of looking at the world of the cyber realist lens that you propose? like a weed nationalization of many ways in seven google was a universal metro player their are some negative consequences so what do see happening as a result of people the newly conscious? >> with the attempt to embrace our silicon valley route to better and facebook so to simplify quite a bit but it in this is have some governments proceed but the second aspect is the freedom agenda is a law enforcement from the conversations and surveillance, tory silicon valley to build back doors so the government's concern of american technology from financial e lead to so as a result what is happening is in instances like russia and china or they try to talk about replicate functions of email, research, but now national champions who would be able to do with domestically to comply with the local was any research in motion want to keep the data at home and do not want it to go elsewhere because we want to have access to it. soto the no systems and search engines, so to use that two but then signing the very long executive order the institutions some was done by economic considerations for sure. but such efforts with proprietary software a few compared to the open source versions. [inaudible] iranian minister of information wants to build the open source system because the fear for good reason and then we don't know that but but russia and iran what is happening in china. so is trying to maintain with that are rather and software but it is happening in america where governments are also reluctant to buy hardware from china's firms because they fear the same thing so some of it is driven by fears that the fact to have the regime change factor is the additional fear. >> host: so to pull back the high altitude this is the american audience, the book is largely depicted to the american audience, is the second decade to believe this transforming but weird you come down to recognize with your views of this? what is wrong with having the anti-corruption website and azerbaijanis or the blog in russia or mobilizing people outside iran for the protest movement? it is a powerful tool for any political expression organization activity as we know it in the united states. what is wrong with that? aren't you falling prey to the very thing this is a tool after all to be good or bad. >> looking at the open society for all we do -- no-no no you just don't quite understand who use the information so many of the initiatives and expansion and the question and it is when it is limited from sources i am talking about the u.s. government and is likely to be interpreted in some more than others how do as someone that has funding to maximize the internet while minimizing from a previous history for that strategy so that is from cyber realism our entire paradigm is changing because it is just four of assumptions government can change come abetted you know, nothing from kie to pakistan if you don't know much about the culture it is unlikely you will realize the impact they will have on it so part of my agenda and the book is to transform this debate on the impact of the internet and in the abstract some might urges to start with a contact in fireman's and forget about the reason so to a large extent and if you come to russia and think a good guys who are fighting the government and nothing in between coming just analyze the powers of the government said you have to consider all of nationalism first is ethnic minorities. [inaudible] >> host: not always for the good. >> guest: but many of the process themselves guardians same democratization. many of them will be amplified. but before we get to this point* we first made we are bound to end up with different policies that could never aggregate and so the problem is that there are differences better institutional and procedural in terms of how to approach to the space to gather a lot of smart people to spend the-- thinking very hard about technology from russia and egypt where we can do the exact opposite and think it very hard but i side with the camp cahal the experts of the college's because i don't think there's that much complexity and makes it difficult to communicate but we just don't know how those factors a less you know, what the environment is like >> host: that is almost a good a place as any to bring in your voices as well to hear what you have to say it is one of those conversations we will have five years from now and 10 years from now. >> guest: i hope. [laughter] >> host: i am struck and many ways the parallels the internet facilitates stolid as much or more than a western democracy. and look at al qaeda on the internet. that fundamentally challenges our nation as a force for good with turns out to me incredibly effective tool to facilitate the work of a small underground group that used to to mike -- communicate anonymously and we have come to the realization that probably was not immediately obvious 2003/2,004. if we can get your questions we will do as many as we can. we start in the front row and will move back words. give us your name. >> thank you for the taka and your book broke just today we saw a report that our own government has been requesting net twitter records to see those that may have been looking for wikileaks information. there was also a report mentioned today that the senate subcommittee is upset that apparently there has been some cyberattack says directed by some members of our intelligence community against other nations. so we are undoubtedly seeing our own government is getting involved. do you see there are any efforts made to restrain their own government in the future? and to say this balances out against the fear of what our other governments are doing? >> the. >> congress of some form. [laughter] >> that is a tough one there is science government is more concerned of the internet to up until now in part because of wikileaks and it was discovered the people around the globe with the help of their computer can launch a cyberattack but into europe and elsewhere so from the internet to a from one opposes come i am just not sure if you put into those terms and the person that is extremely to have a kill switch to have day but to do turn it off and don't think this change will come is much more aggressive than the government itself and they're the ones the department of justice so that they say the change will come probably from some of the diggs parts of the confidence of people from silicon valley many of them are speaking up i don't know if the pressure us civil society is enough but all it takes for the u.s. to pass i don't think that has changed for the better but for the worse so we don't have as much power to shape that. i also don't think it is much pressure you can expect. it is not russia or china has speaking out to put the european you did more often with american companies and privacy policies but from the cyber warfare book debt the army during this time they call themselves the cyber army so it will come to the defense -- defense but i don't think your peahen's are any less aggressive when it comes to cyberspace than america. >> host: the next congress action will be decreed. more questions? >> now the most important issue and a contribution how like used to suggest but to the internet to their own a vantage and also now the internet to is the national solvent issue so that means each country the sob harmful for a vague international relation. thank you. >> the initial question was the way in which opponents climate change could use the internet too and you do see issues not just climate change some of that sticks around seven that is planted deliberately from various think tanks but mondello of information with that is happening you will remember the subject of debate in the last few months was a bunch of emails on the sir and eight glammed so you'll definitely see after this if you present the evidence but all of that applies universally and not just climate change. in this environment i take the consequence as it applies to wikileaks will be the documents from the computer others are to share them and it is something like 30 million from providing documents so that will come in but i don't see anything specific for climate change for say but maybe then cloud computing because the servers is a load of energy but i don't see that much action. [laughter] >> host: there is a question in the back? >> i seek you agree the internet is the disruptive technology and the the rule that we respond better to disruptive technology and in what way responding to the challenge of that the disruptive four countries really like iran or china or russia? >> i eighth eight they are adapting much better but i have to go with those assumptions and convictions and i think it was either cut down completely toward democracy and human rights or the economy collapses because of this talk of the revolution and globalization you need access for technology in order to grow and up until 2005 for 2,006 stowe, the you are transforming government's i do thain those have adopted the world much better and some of that has happened because of the cost to the private sector so they have companies that came to make money to take on a cost of censorship those that have the compound from the website and so the companies take care of that but another thing that is happening from one of the more provocative ideas and the book it is a greater degree of customization and censorship happening we are beginning to see smarter systems emerging to basically make a decision on the spot and based not only on the content access but the identity of the user so my prediction is in a country like china you can access any website they want because put toward the internet use i have other investment bankers as their friends with linkedin and facebook if you look at human rights activist in is the local government with the suspicious website and of course, and then they have to suffer the consequences. but they can still lead it into a be much more selective. all of that is driven by the same logic it is all about customization which corresponds to the brass saying experience. the only difference is that you're just banned access but the logic is more or less the same it is all about customization and that is one way they manage the environment. >> you need to be a subversive investment banker. >> yes. >> we will see if they sensor that. >> we have time for one are two more questions. >> i am near the done with the book and enjoying it very much. my question has to do with the state department missteps and i think you do a good job of copying the bubble of utopianism and the technology. my own feeling of the state department's work with they have been trying to do is introduce the old fashioned bureaucracy and the missteps were caused by the excessive success to bring this technology to the departments and you do a good job of describing you don't get into prescriptions >> not yet. [laughter] if we do have ideas how to do a better job how would they go about it? >> when may talk about cyber realism, i tried to be as much as specific as possible but not the budget killers to not defending freedom not just america but you now have the dutch government the problem and many other european governments so the way i describe that in the book is not the bureaucracy of the state department but the much of it deposit -- depends on if it is a centralized approach and if you have local or regional people may gain the decisions if that was the norm those people are in a much better position than those people who know everything, we have technology blogs all day and know nothing of their nationalism or rigid. -- religion. much of it has to do with the internal structuring and how do they learn? because my on the experience the media internal structure is highlighting the positive changes like russia or china because often it is the pro western democratic people to speak to the media so conservative radio bloggers and then the second reason is they just announced the imperialists to last so what we get to hear about the bloggers promoting the interests of civil society and culture and what not but the overarching point* that they were siding