It was because they wanted to give the people moving into these houses the chance to have some ability to make these their houses, to customize them and build them in configuration that is were useful to them. The government provided building assist sfa assistance services. They talk about what it looks like. Half the houses look exactly the same. The other half, some people have built them out. Some people have built porches. It is sort of half stepford wives, half andy warhol. I think that says something about why ownership is important. It allows people to take advantage of the creativity and offer a perspective. A professor i like has done studies on lead user innovation. When people purchase things, sometimes they come up with creative uses that you wouldnt expect. They might turn paper plate noose frisbees. I think that drives people forward on an individual matter. I think this is really important to people in their daily lives but also as a society. We take advantage of the learning that each of us can do. Pe tutt it on the internetant tell other people how to do it. You go to the internet, lifehack. Com and learn things you wouldnt have expected. That depends on the basic right of ownership which allows you to do unexpected things with what you have. I think thats a really interesting issue and something that we can explore in a lot more depth in terms of we arent really sure how much we own specific things. Our homes, thats something you sit in your house all day. You are like, this is my pillow, my chair. I could paint it a different color, whatever you are thinking about that. In terms of my phone and the software thats running on it, there are updates to that every couple days sometimes you think. Many you dont really read through whats going on in the update. Often times, it is something good. Oftentimes, it is a security update that you definitely should use. We dont necessarily know whats going to happen with those and we dont have a choice. How does our perception of ownership in the Digital Space spill over to the physical and how much do manufacturers own certain objects . The really interesting thing these days. For a long time, i assume i own my chair. I assume i own my notebook. Computer software, im not totally sure. You have to sign that giant thing that nobody reads. You have signed away all your rights. For a long time, that was like a simple distinction. There are a lot of court case that is follow that sort of distinction. Software is one thing and physical is another thing. Today, we have all these devices. Your car has a computer in it. Your thermostat has a computer in it. Your cat feeder has a computer in it to feed the cat at a certain time. You have this merger of things. The boundaries of ownership arent really as clear. The companies that are manufacturing these devices are still take advantage of the same techniques they used in the Software Field to say you dont actually own this. We are only providing you with lie se license. We can take it back from you or you are not allowed to use it on sundays. It is a little different than saying you are not allowed to use itunes. People are starting to recognize that as devices have more software in it, in order to acquire their physical defvices it is not as clear whether or not ownership is as simple as we expected like owning a chair. I think thats right. Ideally we dont think about it. You mentioned, we own our home. I own my home. We are renovating my kitchen. I didnt ask my bank. Technically, they own it. We buy our phones. I think this phone, i did one of those twoyear contracts where i paid per month. I guess technically verizon owns the phone until i hit my twoyear mark. You mentioned manufacturing. I was fortunate enough to be in dayton. I was there representing commerce secretary pritzker for manufacturing day. Toured five factories. Ownership in terms of intellectual property and parts. A lot of auto manufacturing parts going on there but through the supply chain and other parts. Sometimes somebody comes, an inventor and they tell the manufacturing plan manufacturing plant, i need this design. The manufacturing plant might sit down and if they are getting involved in it, they might become a coowner. In some cases, i need this made. They own the i. P. In other cases, maybe it is license. I saw these grills being made for dodge ram trucks. I assumed the designer was licensing that to ford or maybe they were sell teeing ing it to. We dont think about that. You just drive the ram truck. All this stuff was being sold in the background. We dont have to think about that. Absolutely. Thats certainly something that goes along with the background and you may not notice when something bad happens, i guess. One thing i think about a lot when i am writing is technology and the law. Technology Ma Technology has rapidly progressed. Has the law always kept up with that in terms of privacy. Oftentimes, it has not. Something that i read about regularly and i honestly do not know all that much about patent law. I know that you both do. My media boss, direct store lee, talks a lot about this and how we are moving in the manageable economy. As we have these new products and services, they are disrupting Business Models. I any air b b can certainly talk about the mayor of new york and talk about some of the disruption that they are experiencing in terms of regulation. It actually goes broadly. I do think it is important, though, to recognize that often you dont need to completely rethink the law. So weve been using the term sharing economy. In reality, basically, it is like a rental economy. In the 90s, i was covering the tech boom. I would appear on the scene and program called the new economy show. By its very name the assumption was the economy was new. That pets. Com changed the dog food provider and the world. Then, it turns out it was a regular economy. The sharing economy is changing the ways we can interact with each other and products and services. Ultimately, it is still driven by economic forces. I think we would agree with that. You can work within the law but you do have to recognize there are going to be implications that you are an entrepreneur if you are trying to get ahead of those, which is what director lee advises people. One of the things that is interesting, you can look at how ownership affects law. When you have a device that you own and you can inspect it, you can figure out how it works. You can figure it out, publicize it and say, if there is a problem, maybe you shouldnt buy this. The government can get involved in recalls. A lot of times the devices we are buying are black boxes. They put in restrictions to make it harder for us to open them up, figure out whats going on inside, figure out their security flaws. Some of those protections are even technological protections. You might try to circumvent them. There are law that is make it potentially criminal to try and circumvent that sort of thing. Thats somewhat concerning. It means we cant actually fully understand the things that we supposedly own. People couldnt figure out that volkswagen had this Computer Program inside them to achieve the emissions testing program. You cant just go and open up the computer and figure out how it works. They put a whole lot of encryptions in them. The Car Manufacturers have sought to Block Security researchers from actually doing that sort of investigation. In a real world sense, i find that unfortunate. It is a Real Public Service when people go out and figure out na these products might have some sort of defect or some sort of problems. To the extend that companies are able to prevent them from doing that, that seems pretty worrying to me. Absolutely. As a journalist, i speak for Public Awareness and transparency. Thats an important aspect of it. Also, i feel like this could be an issue in terms of creativity. When you have a device or something you use, you want to modify it in some way. You want to use that product to create something of your own. Does your lack of ownership there cause problems for your sense of creativity and in what ways could you envision that . I definitely think that thats an issue. One of my favorite websites is ikea hackers where people will take a chair. Theyll turn it into something my favorite one was, they took file boxes and turned it into an expanding table. I flip out the file boxes and you can make a table of whatever size you want. People do really cool stuff with materials that you would not expect. But there are a lot of companies out there who they really want you to use the products the way they expect. Lexmark is probably the most famous of these companies. They sell toner cartridges with this prebait program, you are only allowed to use the toner cartridge once. You have to return it to lexmark. You are not allowed to do anything else with the cartridge. What that means is that if you come up with some sort of unusual way of using it. For example, there were people who figured out how to put food coloring into ink jet cartridges, to put on cakes and you are not allowed to do it, because they have taken advantages of legal techniques to avoid that. Im glad both of you have mentioned creativity. I like this notion of being the creativity like with your ikea example. We have with the supply chain creativity throughout the chain. Somebody came up with the way to design those pieces of ikea furniture where you could assemble them with only an allen wrench. In theory, you can assemble them. Some of us have had challenges with ikea furniture. You think about lift, right . It just seems intuitively obvious to us. I enjoy using lift and how easy it makes it to tip the driver. I like that feature. We just heard that lift recognizes this need and designed some algorithms to deal with it. There is a full chain of it. There are all kinds of new technologies coming out. How is the Patent Office considering things like 3d printing. How could that infringe on things other people have created . We held an event called additive manufacturing. It is 3d printing. One of the five manufacturing plants i toured only did 3d printing and they have been around since 96. This has been out in the marketplace for a while now. There are certainly implications in terms of copyrights and patents and trademarks, the ability to download something that may have a trademark from somebody else and manufacture it yourself. I think the consensus, though, is, this is truly a revolutionary technology that is going to really improve our lives. At that manufacturing plant, they were designing these parts that were going to be used actually in machines to make other things and they were able to create passages and drillthroughs, for example, like fluids, oils for advice cosity. You cannot do with the drill. No way to drill through. You can work it out. We have to figure out the nuances of i. P. And some will make headlines. We are going to see great Economic Growth and opportunity z one opportunity. One of the most exciting things i think is that it takes manufacturing. It used to be in the hands of people that knew how the entire supply chain worked. They knew fabrication plants and the designers. They knew the specifications for how to do drawings. It takes all of that and puts it into the hands of you and me. I dont know any fabrication plants that can cast metal for me. I know how to type things. If i call a design and i can can design it using Computer Programs for 3d modeling. I can send it off to shapeways and they give me the thing i need to print. Another one is great. I am excited about the potential of 3d printing for replacing kids toys. I have a 3yearold. He loses his favorite leggo every week. More importantly, i am excited about the idea of fast prototyping, the idea that right now, if i want to try out a new idea, i have to send it out to the factory. It is going to take a mt. For them to manufacture it. It turns out there is a problem. I have to redo the design. 3d printing, i just say, i want to make that design here. Lets just reprint it. It will take an hour. You think about the auto industry. We have talked about cars here, right . Traditionally, you would get the new model every four or five years. The car i own, they completely changed the interior from the 15 to the 16 model. I suspect 3d printing was involved in that. They can make these fast prototypes cheap and on the fly. They can test them, run through. We may not even ten years from now, since we are talking future tense. We may not have model years of cars. They may keep it ter rating them in real time. You just keep getting the latest one. It changes the way we think about things. Definitely. Im curious whether or not you both think that types of 3d printing will butt heads with these big manufacturers. We talk about apple and the iphone. I think i know hundreds of people that have broken their iphones. Im not one of them yet. Knock on wood. I probably will tomorrow break my screen. We were just discussing earlier in the greenroom about how it is incredibly challenging to replace that screen without spending a lot of money going to the genius bar. Do you think things like 3d printing and other solutions will be good for that and pubut heads with the big company sns. I was talking about my experience of replacing an ipad screen. The process, in case any of you want to try this out, involves trying is to open the glass with a pry tool in one hand while blow drying the glue that holds the glass together with the other hand. Because this glass is so thin, it breaks off into small pieces. You are sitting there, blow dryer on the one hand. Prying tool in the other, pieces of glass are flying in your face. It is a wonderful experience. I did manage to do it. It says that something about the way some of these manufacturers are training in these devices. I also have a keyboard that i purchased maybe about six years ago. That thing is entirely held together with philip screws. I can take a screwdriver and open it up, replace the logic boards, clean off the keys and do all the things that i want, screw it back together and it works fine. That process takes me about maybe half an hour. When companies moved from things like Standard Hardware to these pentelope screws that they use on laptops and gluing things together and parts that cant be replaced. Parts that are custom fit so you cant replace them with other parts. It makes it a lot harder for people to engage in ordinary repairs of their stuff. That means that if my iphone breaks, unless you have a lot of skills and time or are willing to go to a specialized repair shop, you probably have to throw it away. That, i think, is unfortunate. Because i have to throw a device away because a small part might be broken, a recycling problem, because it contains lithium glass, metal, and you cannot separate it out and send it to a recycling plant. The trend is concerning. 3d printing makes it a little better as it offers the option of recreating customized part that is you might not be able to find. If there is a particular curved bezel on an iphone that is broken and you cant find a replacement for it, you can 3d print it and you have your cell. That is cool. A lot of companies are not terribly happy with the idea. They want to be the only ones selling repair parts. There is going to be something of a conflict there of incentives. Absolutely. As a journalist who works with a very small segment, i work with people who are really interested in things like security, i know that there are a lot of users out there that have different priorities. Maybe the standard iphone isnt necessarily a good example. They have pretty good security. The standard android user. Most people have an driedroids e country but they dont have great security. When they push out the software and there is a flaw and they choose not to update it and all these users are vulnerable to criminal hackers, sometimes even state actors, depending on who it is, i have known certain people who are certainly at risk to that, how do we properly incentivize companies to be able to develop those things when they dont even give us the choice it do that . This is something that commerce secretary pritzker is focused on a lot, cybersecurity and ntia is a part of commerce and she works a lot with them and other sub agencies that have been included in the u. S. Patent and trademark office. It is a real challenge. We work a lot with startups. Generally, what you see with it, specially a tech startup, you see that engineer, the wozniak, lets call it, you see that the evangelist, the jobs, and maybe they get in somebody who actually understands the money part, which is good and then they just plow forward and they get those customers and services. So secretary pritzker and undersecretary lee like to remind people. You should probably early on be thinking about intellectual property and cybersecurity. Both of them are really hard to back load. Once you start getting down the chain, right . Now, in terms of creating the incentives, we are doing it through public education. We are going around, doing round tables, talking to schools. We at the usbto have a program called camp intervention where we work through first through sixth graders. You bring in ibm selectrics and modify them. It is a serious problem. Security is an interesting issue when it comes to io devices. We all know about the recent internet outage that was caused by iot cameras that was easily hacked because they had a fixed password that nobody could change, not even the users. There are two approaches dealing with security vulnerability. The first one is, you would want to lock their devices down as much as possible, dont let anybody access them. Make it hard for anybody to figure out whats going on. It sounds very attractive. The issue is that most of the security vulnerabilities that are discovered are not discovered by the company. They are discovered by third parties who do research on it and they do the fuzzing, they do the Penetration Testing and realize there is something the company overlooked. A lot of times, these companies, they are Design Companies and Manufacturing Companies and software is second or third down the list for them. Sooftware security may not be at the top of the priority chain for them. It would be for users and security users. That leads to a different approach. Open the device as much as possible. Let people figure out whats going on. Make the software an open source. That way, it would take advantage of the crowd. They can figure out what are all the issues. They can report on them and you can incrementally improve the device at a much more rapid pace. So i think that there is that aspect ech of owning and understanding devices that is helpful to cybersecurity concerns. You talk about Security Researchers. There are some air why reas of that we could fear penalties. People are persecuted because they may be doing Security Research to try to help the company but they are penalized because they have accessed that system without authorization. What other sort of ways could people run into issues with doing that kind of tinkering. The most often cited legal concern for this sort of activity is actually called the digital millennium copy right act. That was designed as a way of enforcing drm technologies on music or dvds or e books. If they put on some sort of encryption or technological measure, that protects the contents, then efforts to circumvent that technological protection measure would be punishable as a crime in civil lawsuits and any number of other ways. Companies have sought to use that as a way of protecting not just copyrighted content, not ebooks but tractors and medical devices and all sorts of Internet Things products. Because they all have software on them, the software is copyrighted, the fear is that any technological measures are protecting the software inside it. The assertion of that law, in a fairly strange way. That is somewhat concerning. There are similar other issues with cfa, of course. The digital copy right act is something to bring up. The u. S. Copy right act has a procedure where they can create exceptions. We are not a Law Enforcement agency. They did start a conversation on co copy right and innovation. We did a green paper in 2013 and white in 2014. Green paper is here are the problems and white paper is potential solutions. I didnt know it before i joined the government. We received so many comments. I know Public Knowledge participated in those as well. We had round tables around the country. One thing we kept hearing over and over again, there are these issues but the marketplace is working some of them out. That was encouraging. Thats not surprising. We have been talking all day here about what do consumers want. What do we as end users want . If you are going to have a bunch of consumers that are unhappy, there is probably going to be somebody that is going to target that. Not saying that everything is solved or there wont be future problems. It is interesting to see based on what we heard that things are working themselves out in some ways. I will stop monopolizing the two of you and open it up to the audience. Remember our previous instructions. Please wait for the mike. When you are asking a question, make sure it is a question and not just a statement. Anyone want to kick things off . I feel bad because i already asked one. I am curious about changing attitudes in this space towards patent law and ownership. Are there partisan trends there . Are there trends or fault lines opening up between younger people who have different ideas about ownership and the role that patent should play in that. Im curious, because i dont think about patents at all, because i dont create anything. I wonder if i am representative of a mellenal who would be involved in creating something that would approach this without any of the questions about i. P. Going forward, are you seeing any trends or resetting there . It is an excellent question. We do seem to live in partisan times, right . You dont think about patents that much. I am totally fine with that. I mentioned my kids earlier. They have been forced to think about it far too often because i bring it up at the dinner table. They are both in college now. I guess they are free from there. For the most part, intellectual property policy is a pretty by party sap issue. In 2011, Congress Passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in the house and senate which we have implemented at the u. S. Bto. It has provided tools to improve patent quality. Provided a Stable Funding and a post grant court so anybody can challenge a patent if they think it is illegitimate and bring it before this court. It is faster and cheaper than a u. S. Court. I think what you are seeing here is that to the extent ha thethae are divisions and debate in the patent community, it has to do with your Business Model. Are patents essential to your Business Model or are they per i everal . Trademarks are important to everybody with the little flowy writing and the pink. I think thats a pretty important part. Patents vary from industry to industry. Thats where the friction lies. Addressing a different part of that question, which i think is a great question, one of the interesting things i see particularly among younger people is that weve talked a lot about sharing economy of cars and music. There is somewhat of a shared economy of ideas. It started with the idea of open source software, the idea that instead of i create the software and so, therefore, i am going to try to make a lot of money on it by selling it. I created the software. Im just going to share it with people and other people can improve it and we will have a Big Community of people that are helping to put together this really cool lenox operating system or open office word processing system. It gets to different models of innovation for other things. I think one of my favorite examples of this is kickstarter. The idea that somebody could have a really cool idea and a lot of times they obtain patents or trademarks on it but sometimes they dont. The idea is they profit from their idea but saying lets get a crowd of people that will be willing to contribute enough money to make it worth my time to put together this artwork or do any number of things. That in a sense turns on its head the traditional way we viewed monetizing ideas. If i have an idea, i can patent on it and have the exclusive right to it and make money. I have an idea and i am going to ask people money for it first and then make the idea. We are starting to see new Business Models and new norms about how innovation can happen as technology develops and as we have generational change. Thats really exciting to me, i think. So a question on tinkering. As we talk about ipads, et cetera, move towards more software that is touch enabled or voice enabled. I used to work at apple. I could tinker and make siri read things for some of my blin customers. They started locking it down so i couldnt make it read for them and they had to find a different app. What is the solution in patenting and tinkering when it comes to disabilities and making sure we are innovating for all groups. Let me start by saying i have now learned that if i need to replace that, we have a tinkerer right here. There are lots of challenges in terms of this. We were talking about this beforehand. I think all three of us share this. It is not always property or not always patents. You mentioned the eulas, end user license agreements. A lot of these are business transactions. Most of us want that app so we are allowing it to get all this personal information. When you read it, you are like, why do you need all this stuff. Maybe thats where consumers can step in. Sometimes it hits on intellectual property. A lot of times just a pure Business Model. I agree. She is playing herself down a bit. She is the macro in repair expert. She fixes all of the computers. She is great. It is right that these are a lot of businesses. This is an agreement or a dispute between apple and amazon on the issue of whether or not you are going to be allowed to play voice things over certain systems. I think, you know, at least the first answer is that the people who are using these things just need to express that this is bad. Back when apple was thinking of moving all of their itunes music to drm formats, that you wouldnt be able to move on to different devices. There was a huge public outcry over that. They actually walked that back and reintroduced the format for 1 more per song. These companies have consumer concerns. If people say, look, this is not what we want, we want to be able to tinker. We want to be able to put our music on different devices, then as a business pattern, they have to listen. I think we can fit one more question. If not, i will ask one of my own. Anyone . We have talked a lot obviously about specifics in terms of ownership and what we are losing, what we are gaining. But i feel like broadly the average american might not know what things that they are losing. They might not realize the privacy implications. They may not realize that they cannot alter or tinker or have someone else do it for them. So how do we communicate those issues to the public . So thats something that we think about a lot at the u. S. Patent and trademark office. I mentioned our camp intervention program. We have our collegiate inventors coming on the third and fourth of november. We are the National Hall of fame. They are out there talking to schools and talking to educators. It really has a lot to do with consumer awareness, i think. I think events like this are useful. It is online. We will be able to share that. I do think too and charles can speak to this. There are times when consumers rise up and can speak more broadly and be heard. Ultimately, thats what matters, right . The power of the consumer. Just very briefly, i think that is exactly right. These issues affect consumers all the time, whether or not they realize it or not. It is just a matter of realizing that all those contracts you design actually mean something. You might want to consider what the policy issues are behind that. People are starting to realize that. Read the fine print. Thank you so much, everyone. Great to have you. Election night on cspan, watch the results and be part of a National Conversation about the outcome. Be on location at the Hillary Clinton and donald trump headquarters and watch victory and concession speeches in key senate house and governor races starting live at 8 00 p. M. Eastern and throughout the following 24 hours. Watch live or listen to our live coverage using the free cspan radio app. Experts on National Security and terrorism talked about how news and social media can shape public reaction. How city officials, social media and journalist responded to the orlando pulse nightclub terror attack. Welcome. Im pleased to introduce this event on terrorism in america in the digital age. My name its tom glaysier. I am a Program Director at Democracy Fund. Two sister organizations founded tone sure that the public comes first in our democracy. Voices dedicated to helping america build a stronger, healthier organization. We are work tog ensure our political system is responsive to the public and able to meet the challenges facing our nation. We seek to do things that make democracy work better. I focus on strengthening media with priorities on reducing information and exploring engagement practices. However, as a political fearmonger in this in society heated up, we asked ourselves not what role we could make it better but what dangerous scenarios could take place that could actually make things even worse. Quite frankly, we were concerned in the current election cycle and how it could speed the emotion of democratic institutions. While emergency might have spent significant time thinking about public responses to major disaster. Little attention is focused on how major shocks and disruptions can damage Political Institutions and processes. The paper launched today on the event provided tremendous opportunity to explore tra strategies for developing greater resiliency. It is our hope that expert reports on this topic will prompt conversations among journalists, Technology Companies and others about the practice that is are employed to respond to the unthinkable and how these responses can strengthen rather than threaten the health of our democracy. I am very much looking forward to the discussion this is afternoon. Without further comment, on behalf of my colleagues, i would like to pass the mike to sharon. Thank you. Thank you very much, tom. Welcome all of you that are here today. I am sharon burke, a Senior Adviser here at new america, where i run a program on resource security and im also an adviser to the interNational Security program, the future of war, and a coauthor of this report, which is war and tweets, terrorism in america in the digital age. I am going to introduce my colleague, peter, singer, in a moment. I want to thank tom glasyier and Democracy Fund voice. When we started this project, i thought their mission was great, about revitalizing democracy and strengthening civil society, what he talked about in terms of erosion and the longterm concerns. I was with him on that. I didnt think it was an urgent, immediate problem. Now, mea culpa, you were right. This is something for right now, not a concern about what happens next year or ten years from now. So im glad to be a part to be supporting their mission and supported by them. I also want to thank the people that worked on this project, lisa sims was the project coordinator, David Sterman and peter and his team advised us. Peter is currently in iraq. He couldnt be here. We very much appreciate his work and all of the Communications Team here at new america that puts on these events. Im going to start by summarizing our report and get into a conversation with dr. Singer. He just came out with a new article in the atlantic that i commend to everyone here about war going viral and war in the age of social media. We are going to talk a little bit about our report and his work. What are some of the similarities and differences there. We are going to have a wonderful panel come up. I will introduce you to them at that time. We will have a discussion and some audience q and a. I want to preset with you with the audience and the audience we have online. University of Central Florida is joining us on line. I may look nice and friendly but keep keep your questions to a question or something with a question mark at the end. If you monologue, i probably will cut you off. Im not that friendly. First, peter singer is here at new america. He is a strategist and senior fellow. I am looking at his bio to make sure i get the key points. He is one of the top National Security experts in this country. He has a really interesting focus on technologygists. He is a trend spotter and always ahead of the game and operating in just about every sector you can. He is advising governments, hollywood and technologists. I am delighted you could join me to open this up and have a conversation. First, our report. When we started this report, we wanted to look at terrorism in america and how people react to terrorism. Of course, in the middle of our study, the attack in orlando at pulse nightclub happened. That changed what we were looking at a little bit. To put it in a broader context, peter bergen and his team have done a lot of work on whats happened in america since 9 11. There have been 147 americans killed in terrorist attacks. 49 at the hand of gjihadists. More recently, the places that will ring a bell are san bernardino, orlando, of course, which is a case study in this report, minnesota, the stabbing in minnesota, new york city, new jersey and maybe even North Carolina recently. It is too soon to tell what the details of that attack were. It is possible that was also a terrorist attack. Political violence in this country. We have aid history of it for a long time. It is not all jihadi violence. Everything from the Weather Underground to possibly this new attack in North Carolina. As i said, hard to say at this time. It is not possible to stop all attacks for all time no matter how good our intelligence operations are, no matter how good our military is and very good, gentlemen, we know that. We have had a couple of Army Officers here, which is terrific. We cant stop everything for all time. So what do terrorists want . More than 30 years ago, Prime MinisterMargaret Thatcher said that pub lisilicity is the oxyg terrorism. They want to affect how you feel, how you act, how your government acts. They have their own goals. The definition of terrorism is a group that uses violence for a political or idealogical cause. Thats what they want. How you act is part of their strategy. Resilience to such attack had should be and is part of any nations Counter Terrorism strategy. So when you look back at the recent attacks that have happened in places like san bernardino. When you look at polling, a lot of americans feel like they are at personal risk for a terror attack. The risk of any individual american being attacked isnt that high. Why was sander nar dino a target. Because the perpetrators lived there. In other words, even though any given individual is not at risk, any city could be attacked. Every city needs to be prepared for this crisis and what they would do. Dhs, the department of homeland security, defines resilience as the ability to resist, absorb, recover from or successfully adapt to adversity or a change in conditions. We look at what determines resilience, what shapes resilience. A big part of resilience is who tells the story and what kind of story they tell. How do they choose to shape the narrative . This is something thats changing dramatically in the era of social media. Thats what we looked at. How is the way the story is told changing . We have a historical section in our report that starts with the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. We started with that bombing, because thats when you start to see Live Television coverage coming into play in a big way. It is also when cell phones first started making an appearance. They are so ubiquitous today that it is hard to believe there was a time so recently when they werent. You started to have people with cell phones that were going to be calling news organizations, calling government and First Responders with information. So we started from there and tracked how media and this personal ability to communicate from eyewitnesses, victims and perpetrators starts to shape the story. We went from there and looked at also the Oklahoma City bombing. Pretty much every attack thats happened since then. Starting in 93 and, of course, before that, news media was largely the gatekeeper, the narrator that told you the story by what images they told you. That starts to change when camera phones arrive, which happens in the early 2000s. Probably everyone in here has a camera phone on them right now. That was just starting in the 2000s. You saw that particularly in the 2005 london metro bombing that cameras, phones, pictures people took from their phones were making it on the nightly news and into the papers. 2009, ft. Hood, that was one of the first jihadist attacks in the United States that was using social media. Social media picked up the story and began to shape it. The boston bombing, we will hear from one of our panelists about what that felt like. We saw some big changes with social media coverage. In two ways. Officials were use teeing to spread misinformation. There was a story there had been a bomb at the jfk library and the Boston Police repeated it. A social media platform read it. The users really kind of ran away with the story and started speculating on had the perpetrators might be. When Law Enforcement tried to get ahead of the story by putting out some early photos and the users tried to guess who they might be, they guessed wrong. They identified a picture and matched it with a student who was missing. He was not the perpetrator but the pain and suffering it caused his family was awful. So this is when we first saw social media starting to play that kind of role for better and worse. In 2013, the Westgate Mall shoot ng kenya. You had the terrorist group, el shaba liked perp tracing their own attack, directly communicating with the public what the story is. All the way to today where not only do you have that, you also have live streaming. Now, as i said, we spend a lot of time on orlando in our study, because it was the case study that we looked at. It happened in the middle of our research. Im not going to go into too much detail right now about what we saw and what we found, because we are fortunate enough to have the mayor of orlando here today. I think he can best tell you what that looked like. What i do want to say is, as were entering as were firmly in this era now where news media is not the only gatekeeper and Public Officials dont control the story. What did we learn from orlando and all the other cases we looked at in a time when eyewitnesses, victims and perpetrators thousands of miles away are going to shape the story and how the public reacts. We found ha that leadership matters. First responders and Public Officials still have an authoritative voice in telling the story. How they shape it, what they say, when they say it, to whom they say it really matters. What you will hear from mayor dire is that he thought very carefully about that and what he wanted his city to feel and to think. That matters. Also, a part of that is that leadership matters, you also have to be prepared. Not only prepared exercises for a crisis but prepared for the communications aspect and for the happened at 2 00 in the morning. The city had a little time to think about how it was going to respond. If it happened at 2 00 in the afternoon, they would have had to know right away. The fact they were prepared and knew how to use social media for this kind of crisis would have made a huge difference. It did, even though they have a little time to craft their response. So social media and the pace of information has to be built into exercises. Second, i think we found that its really important to give the public a constructive role, to give them agency. So one of the things that we found that was very interesting is after the paris attacks, recent paris attacks, there was a Police Operation in brussels where they were hunting for some of the suspects. The Brussels Police communicated to the city, please do not post pictures or tweet where were conducting operations, youll just tip off the people were looking for. And the city and the wider Twitter Community responded and began tweeting cat pictures i dont know if people remember this, to the , brussels lockdown. It buried things people were posting that might help find where they were doing these operations. The Brussels Police posted after that a picture of cat food and said, thank you, help your selves. So again, i think not just by being sophisticated with social media but by giving victims a way to not feel like victims, it helps with resilience. Include communications and social media use and planning in real life really do as Public Officials and First Responders need to know, need to have practiced and incorporated social media into your operations, eastbound for a small city. Finally what we found was its important to empower your local press. Of all the press it tells the story they are part of your community, so they have a vested interest in the community being resilient because they live there, because their families live there. They also have the most local knowledge. So local press, even though they are under a lot of pressure right now from all kinds of competition still has an Important Role to play. An out of state change become a different kind of press that will continue to be true. Then finally social Media Companies we think need to embrace their responsibility here. They are the mass media of choice toward many, many people now. Whether they see themselves in that light or not, it is the truth. Some companies such as facebook have been pretty forward leaning and trying to understand what that means. They have community rules. They are experimenting with how to improve them. They are experimenting with how transparent to be. They are experimenting with collaboration with the government. Facebook is by far the most used social Media Company and they try to embrace this role. They have people who look at counterterrorism on their staff. So thats a good thing. Theres also a lot of companies who will say things like twitter has community rules, we speak truth to power. Thats great. That tension between dangerous speech and free speech is very real and not something you can easily dismiss. A place like reddit where they can say we dont get into that, that rings hollow with something that happened like with the boston bombings where you ruin somebodys life. Social Media Companies need to embrace their role and the fact they are mass Media Companies at this point. With that id like to turn to peter. Peters article in the atlantic called war goes viral. He focused on the side of the equation, partly this is a weapon and how isis and others use it. I have my notes, all the things i want to talk about. The first thing i want to ask you can you define homofly for us. Dig down into the details. It should be familiar to you, definition of love of self. What happens, theres an idea, seeming contradiction where this technology is supposed to be bringing us together. Were searching out and finding validation in people who think like us already. So you can see this in everything from sports. You connect to people who like the same team or hate the same team to the election where all the information is online. If you watch the facebook feed of a trump supporter versus a hillary supporter, they are in fundamentally different worlds. So you create these kind of ecochambers and its the same thing happening on the violence side as well. To pull back on all this, what we were wrestling with in the project, Emerson Brookings council on Foreign Relations is how the internet its self is changing and how that affects all of us. The internet has gone from being used merely to transfer information back and forth, me emailing you, to also collecting information about the world around us. So your average smartphone has over 20 sensors on it. The camera to geo location, you name it. Actually when you crunch the numbers, we have roughly 6 billion things online right now, the internet of things, smart cars, et cetera. You get up to 50 billion. Actually that leads to a trillion sensors out there, things collecting information. The other shift what youre talking about, the rise of social media, were not just collecting information, were sharing it. We become distributors of information in the way media used to be. So the result is every single actor in violence is online, be it isis, be it the u. S. Military, be it the russian military, and every single act of violence is being talked about online usually in realtime now. Often first. Again, thats true whether youre looking at the case of the attack in orlando where, you know, literally the clubs facebook account. Seven minutes. Seven minutes. Its telling people inside the club to run, yet you and i can track it from afar to right now you can track the battle with mosul via everything from Youtube Channel to instagram. This is something new, something different. The reason i started asking a specific term. Youre painting a picture that its this world of information and informers but also a world of selective truths and untruths. That makes it different, right . People are deciding which pieces of that they want to hear. The way i frayed it is theres arguably no more secrets, but the truth is being buried beneath a sea of lies. We can see that playing out anything from electoral Politics Today and how that links to russian Information Warfare campaigns to the discourse over terrorism. You name it. Homophily side comes in. Its strange, the way we think. Were more likely to believe information that connects and links the way we already view the world. When they did a study of what goes viral, its not what you are most likely to share online. What you are most likely to share online is not defined by its truth whether its true or not. Its by whether it validated what you thought before and how many of your friends already shared it. So theres a little bit of a peer pressure side. The other thing thats disturbing, when you confront someone with a counterargument, even if its true, they are actually more likely to dig in and hold to their old belief rather than change their mind. If i say youre wrong and present facts to show youre wrong, youre actually less likely to be persuaded. You dont mean me personally. Again, we all kind of feel that in the election right now. Take that and tell us in the article you went to you talked about isis. So thats the general sort of swirling backdrop against which they are operating. If i remember right in the article, you know, a lot of people are talking about they are social media geniuses. I think you called them talented plagiarist. Strategic plagiarist. Isis using social media in a way thats new and not new. Talk about that, the way in which they are using it as a weapon. They are one analyst put it, first arguably terrorist group to own both physical territory and digital territory. You see echos in what they are doing with the classic story of terrorism its self. Terror doesnt take place in alley ways. You go back to attacks in judea, back when zealots are attacking roman soldiers or sympathizers. They make sure to do it in the square where everyone can see it. More recently terrorism defined as theater of violence, a top analyst do it. They are trying to do it in public. Persuade its all about emotion, publicity. The same thing if you look at their use of social media. One hand they are advancement. Its amazing to compare how al qaeda communicated back to using vcrs and cable tv to now the social media side. Much of what they are doing you can see parallel and best practices online. So they were going oh, my goodness. They launched their mosul offensive with a hashtag, which is what any video game or movie would do. They are highly visual. Again, they try and work the system to their advantage, so go back to that mosul operation, they created an app for it that then spun out 40,000 retweets so that then their message started to trend. They had twitters algorithm work the same way a Political Campaign would do it. They try to hijack conversations. They jump into conversations on everything from the world cup to interviews with minor youtube celebrities so they can get attention. Another example would be the buzzfeed style. They dont just have one message. They push out multiple messages. Buzzfeed puts out roughly 200 stories a day. One of them takes off and the others do not. Same thing in isis messaging. The other part, which is the tactic used by everything from, you know, the real strategists of social media, katy perry and taylor swift, its the combination of being very strategic and tailored and also simultaneously authentic. So katy perry arguably has the most twitter followers. She mixes promotion with very personal kind of messages that are dashed off quickly in a style that sort of connects to her followers. The same things if you look at what isis is doing, its a mix of messaging and very kind of personal so you see everything from battle footage to a guy complaining about everything from having potato peeling duty to putting up instagrams of his cats to musing on the death of Robin Williams and what the isis fighter thought about jumanji. They are taking the message into a different space where the cultivation began. Its the same thing that happened in online dating. You meet someone who sounds like you and take the message to the side and talk further. Thats where were seeing recruiting. Its partly in the open but also moving to a more personal level. So its not just a nonstate group trying to look bigger than it is thats using this technique to a greater advantage. Its also the russians both with rt, their news media Source Online and their use of social media, their hacks, all that. Also you talked about in your article cyber nationalists of china. You talk about the role also the quote that really caught me you said something about it, its a World Without facts. So my questioning bundling all of that together is so what do we do in this world . How do you consider or how do you fight or deal with the fact you have isis to it to cyber nationalists who are trying to influence your public and tell the story. Have you seen Good Strategies . What do you think a good strategy is . I love the message you have in your report. In discussions of everything from terrorism to Cyber Security, were constantly using the two ds, defense and deterrence. Keep the bad guys out and or scare the bad guys away. And in terrorism in Cyber Security and in this Information Warfare side, that is a losing game. As you put it, its never going to give you 100 security because, one, theres actors that arent deterrable. Other actors already on the inside, so you can do whatever you want on the immigration on the wall side but inside, same thing in Cyber Security. Instead, the magic word should be resilience