Who owns our data, and why does it matter? Words of wisdom from Tim Cook, Ginni Rometty, and more.

Insights: The Data Ownership Crisis

[MUSIC PLAYING] ADAM LASHINSKY: A big topic in Silicon Valley right now is whether or not big tech is going to be regulated. And the short answer is yes. For a variety of reasons, with the debacle at Facebook being the most important, regulation is coming to the tech industry, and soon. Expect the big tech companies to fight this coming regulation tooth and nail. It is not an exaggeration to say that their very business model, that their very profits, that their very existence depends on fighting new regulation. There are three general ways that the big tech companies could be regulated. One is for them to get a single digital regulator. A second is for broad privacy laws to be rewritten affecting them. And a third is to change the general approach for antitrust regulation. The United States government and other governments could create a single digital regulator. So think of the Food and Drug Administration as a comparison, one regulatory agency to oversee digital companies. And it would give one way to focus on the actions of companies like Facebook and Google and Amazon and others. Europe has been far more active on the issue of privacy than the United States. Europe passed a piece of legislation called the GDPR, which gives users of the internet certain rights over their data. There isn't a similar law in the United States. There is, by the way, in one very important state, California. Most people in industry believe that the law that California passed in 2018 and that is going to take effect in 2020 is not a particularly good law, and they would like the United States Congress to pass a law that would supersede the California law. That is something that has a very real chance of happening this calendar year in 2019. And another area where big tech could be regulated has to do with antitrust. Now, decades of antitrust law in the United States has said that if you raise prices, you might be a monopoly, and you can be broken up. Tech companies tend not to raise prices. They tend to lower prices or to not charge anything at all. And so the new theories in antitrust, sometimes known as hipster antitrust, says let's not focus on pricing. Let's focus on harm-- harm to consumers, harm to competitors, harm to partners. In this area, if the antitrust thinking were to change, it could have a massive impact on the biggest tech companies, often called the behemoths, and they could be broken up as a result. There's a conventional wisdom not surprisingly pushed by Silicon Valley that neither legislators nor regulators in Washington, DC are capable of regulating technology, that the topics are too confusing. Regulators have proven themselves highly adept at technical nuances. They just need to be given the time, the budget, and the people to do it. And so I have no doubt that big tech can be regulated-- maybe not tomorrow, but not much happens in that time frame anyway. 

Insights: Regulation is Coming for Tech's Behemoths

Uncategorized

Legislators and consumers are fed up with big tech.

Regulation is Coming for Tech's Behemoths

Whether Apple, Google, or Facebook, it’s clear legislators, regulators, and consumer advocates are fed up with big tech companies.

Ah, big topic in Silicon Valley right now is whether or not big tech is going to be regulated. And the short answer is yes, for a variety of reasons. With the debacle at Facebook being the most important, regulation is coming to the tech industry and soon expect the big tech companies to fight this coming regulation tooth and nail. It is not an exaggeration to say that they're very business model, that they're very profits, that their very existence depends on fighting new regulations. There are three general ways that big tech companies could be regulated. One for them to get it a single digital regulator. A second is for broad privacy laws to be written affecting them. And 1/3 is to change the general approach for antitrust regulations, the United States government and other governments. I could create a single digital regulator. So think of the Food and Drug Administration as a comparison one regulatory agency to oversee digital companies, and it would give one way to focus on the actions of companies like Facebook and Google and Amazon and others. Europe has been far more active on the issue of privacy than the United States, You're a past a piece of legislation called the G D. P R, which gives users of the Internet certain rights over their data. There isn't a similar law in the United States. There is, by the way, in one very important state. California. Most people in industries believe that the law that California passed in 2018 and that is going to take effect in 2020 is not a particularly good law. And they would like the United States Congress to pass a law that would supersede the California law. That is something that has a very real chance of happening this calendar year in 2019. In another area where big tech could be regulated has to do with antitrust now. Decades of antitrust law in the United States has said that if you raise prices, you might be a monopoly and you could be broken up. Tech companies tend not to raise prices. They tend the lower prices or who not charge anything at all. And so the new theories and then I trust, sometimes known as hipster antitrust, says Let's not focus on pricing. Let's focus on harm, harm to consumers, harm to competitors harm to partners in this area. If the antitrust thinking were to change, it could have a massive impact on the biggest tech companies, often called the behemoth, and they could be broken up as a result. There's a conventional wisdom, not surprisingly, pushed by Silicon Valley, that neither legislators nor regulators in Washington, D. C. Are capable of regulating technology that the topics are too confusing. Regulators have proven themselves highly adept at technical nuances. They just need to be given the time, the budget and the people to do it. So I have no doubt that big check can be regulated. Maybe not tomorrow, but not much happens in that time frame anyway.

[MUSIC PLAYING] ADAM LASHINSKY: One of your planks is to figure out how to regulate while also encouraging industry. And would you discuss that a little bit? MARIE-LAURE DENIS: Yes. I think, of course I understand that a protection can be more reglamentation, tax reglamentaion, competition reglamentation, another reglamentation. But I think our idea and into a bit of the European authorities is that it can foster innovation, also an economy, because digital economy will not grow, from a sustainable point of view, if there is no trust. And we see all over the world that trust is the key word for development of digital economy. There have been many scandals about data protection breaches. We see, each time we do a control, we see there are breaches, for example, or there are problems. And people are more and more conscious of that. And I think innovation can be compatible with data protection. HELEN DIXON: I agree entirely with Marie-Laure. Data protection is about engendering trust of citizens or customers, depending on whether public sector or private sector entities. It's simply a framework to allow an organization to do something in the right way. It doesn't out and out prohibit anything. There are ways of legitimizing different forms of personal data processing, once the interests of the individuals whose data are being processed are protected in the process. ULRICH KELBER: We are dealing a lot with the American big tech companies as individual companies with their cloud services, which are much ahead of European services these days, and even with the Privacy Shield, negotiations and reviews. I think we have to have a look out for other countries, third party countries, where a lot of data processing with European companies are made in, like China, Indonesia, India, and not only concentrate on the American companies. But to enforce our data protection, our first duty is to ensure the constitutional rights of individuals. From privacy and self-determination, we have to have a look out, even on American web services, on cloud services, and especially with regulations like the US Cloud Act, the debate about the agreement, an umbrella agreement, between the European Union and the US about cloud services. We have to have a look out is who can have a grip on that data in such services each data is collected, because that idea of a data leak, a business case, that's not a European value. ADAM LASHINSKY: I confess that before preparing for our panel, I did not know about the US Cloud Act. Now I do. But could you briefly tell everybody what it is? ULRICH KELBER: Briefly. The basic idea of that you can have access to data, which are stored by companies, even if the physical place of storage is not inside the country itself, that means the US, but even, for example, in the European Union, which is in a kind of rivalry to European regulations of who can have access on data. [CHIME]

Insights: Is Data Regulation Hurting Tech Innovation? 

Officials from Europe offer their thoughts.

Is Data Regulation Hurting Tech Innovation? 

Officials from Ireland, France, and Germany offer their thoughts. (November 2019)

one of your planks is to figure out how to regulate while also encouraging industry. And would you discuss that a little bit? Yes, I think off course. I understand that protection can be, uh, more regular mint ation tax red lamentation competition, Rip lamentation, Another rib lamentation. But I think our idea, and the better of the European authorities, is that it can foster innovation. Also an economy because digital economy will not grow from a sustainable point of view. There is no trust on we see all over the world that trust is the key word for development of digital economy. There have been many scandals about, uh that protection riches we see each time we do a control. We see there are riches, for example, or their problems on people are more and more countries of that. And I think innovation can be compatible with that protection. I agree entirely with Marie Laure. Data protection is about engendering off citizens or customers depending on whether public sector or private sector entities, it's simply a framework to allow an organization do something in the right way. It doesn't prohibit anything. There are ways of legitimizing different forms of personal data processing once the interest off the individuals whose data are being processed are protected in the process. We're dealing a lot with the American big tech companies. Invalid companies with their cloth service, which are much ahead of European service, is these days on the even with the privacy shield regulations and reviews, I think we have to have a look out for other countries that party countries, where a lot off data processing with European companies are made in, like China, Indonesia, India and not only concentrate on the American companies but to enforce our data protection off. First duty is to ensure the constitutional rights of individuals from privacy and self determination. We have to have a look out even on American weather. Service is on Cloud service is on, especially with the regulations like the U of Claudette. The debate about the um on agreement, an umbrella agreement between the European Union and the US about clothes service is we have to have a look out who can have uh, can have a grip on that data. In such service is data collected because a year of a data lake, a business case that's not the European value, could you? I confess that before preparing for our panel, I did not know about the U. S Cloud act. Now I do. But could you briefly tell everybody what it is? Briefly, the the basic idea of that you can have access to data which are stored by companies in the physical place. Off storage is not inside the country itself. That means the U. S. But even, for example, in the European Union, with its in a kind off revelry to two European regulations of who can have except on data.

[MUSIC PLAYING] I do think for consumer privacy, there does need to be some regulation about what are your rights and the right to be forgotten, to know what is there, et cetera. That has to get done. I then think from a liability perspective, is precision. Because one of my greatest fears about all the regulation talk is-- and I got into this quite a lot in Europe as they were going through. And I think they moved their way through this, is that you could completely derail a digital economy. Unintended consequences very easily on these topics, just like people conflate consumer and business process data moving around. And so but I do think-- that's why I call it precision regulation. And I think from a liability perspective, things like unlawful material, et cetera, you should be held liable. And this gets back to it. Let me just-- because there is a story I think that's worth telling on this and about the role we each have. Senator Portman, there is the SESTA Bill, the child sex trafficking bill. For a very long time, he was trying to get this bill passed in our country. And it said that if you knowingly-- and I want to take a poll-- if you knowingly hosted child sex trafficking, you are liable. So if I asked you that, if you knowingly hosted it, do you think you should be liable? Raise your hand. Yeah. You hands went up very quickly. Mine, too. Because the question was if I knowingly did it. If I knowingly did it, I'm like, yes, of course. But there are many who did not believe that was true, by the way. Didn't believe it should-- No. They said, no, no, I'm just-- I mean, I cannot be held. But they said, no, no, you knowingly know this. So I think now this regulation comes because OK, I have got to be-- some of this is you have a responsibility. We have a responsibility in this era, right? Now this is an ethics question. Because I'm saying I have determined I think child sex trafficking is a bad thing when I'm saying this. And so that point I think that regulations should be there for things like that, that is against the law, but we shouldn't have to fight about that. That should be very clear, those kinds of things. And so therefore my regulation would be on consumer protection, privacy, and then unlawful activities, all right, would be my precision regulation. 

Insights: IBM's CEO Wants 'Precision Regulation for Big Data

Ginni Rometty spoke at CEO Initiative 2019.

IBM's CEO Wants 'Precision Regulation for Big Data

I do think for consumer privacy there does need to be some regulation about, you know, what are your rights and the right to be forgotten to know what is there etcetera that has to get done. I then think from a liability perspective is precision. Because when my greatest fears about all the regulation talk is and I got into this quite a lot in Europe as they were going through, and I think they move their way through this is that you could completely derail a digital economy. Unintended consequences very easily on these topics, just like people conflict, consumer in business process data moving around. And so But I do think I'm deaf. I call it precision Regulation, and I think from a liability perspective, things like, you know, unlawful material, et cetera. You should be held liable, and but this gets back to it. Let me let me just because there is a story, I think it's worth telling on this about the role we each have. Um, Senator Portman. There's the test a bill, the child sex trafficking bill for a very long time. He was trying to get this bill passed in our country And it said that if you knowingly and I won't take a poll, if you knowingly hosted child sex trafficking, you were liable. So if I asked you that if you knowingly hosted it, do you think you should be liable? Raise your hand? Yeah. You hands when a very quickly Mine, too. Because the question was if I knowingly did it if I knowingly did it, I'm like, yes, of course. But there are many who did not believe that was true. By the way, I didn't believe it should know. They said no. No, I met him. Just some pipe means I cannot be held. But this normally you knowingly know this. So I think this now this regulation comes because Okay, I have got to be some of this is you. You have a responsibility. We have a responsibility in this era right now. This is an ethics question, right? Cause I'm thinks I have determined I think child sex trafficking because a bad thing when I saying this And so that point, I think that regulations should be there for things like that. That is against a lot. But you know, you we shouldn't have to fight about that. That should be very clear, those kinds of things. And so therefore my regulation being consumer protection, privacy and then unlawful activities right would be in my precision regulation.

 MICHAL LEV-RAM: We really wanted to look at what Facebook is doing to address some of its recent issues, but not only through the lens of the Cambridge Analytica scandal and some of the other problems that it's currently dealing with, like bad content that's proliferated on the platform. We really wanted to look at it as a business story, and that really has to do with its core product, its ability or inability to keep innovating. And we went in and met with both Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg, and other people on the executive team at the company and got a glimpse of the different ways that they are trying to turn their attention and to sort of re-prioritize around current needs. MARK ZUCKERBERG: The big shift is moving from a reactive model of how we're handling this stuff where people in our community flag something when they see it, to one where we are just building systems to get out ahead. SHERYL SANDBERG: The resource shift is real. If you want to know what a company cares about before it spends its money end up where the people spend their time. And some of the stuff, look, we didn't have any team on fake news four years ago. I'm not sure people were as aware of it. I don't know of any-- I don't if any company have team on it. So some of that is very brand new. MARK ZUCKERBERG: When we were just getting started at a dorm, you couldn't have done a lot of the stuff that we do now, we couldn't have had 30,000 people or any thousands of people proactively reviewing content. The AI to be able to find things that could be potentially harmful just really didn't exist back then. I wish we'd gotten-- we've done it a couple of years sooner, but I think a lot of the stuff, really, we can do now and it's just about making sure that we're invested in all these things. MICHAL LEV-RAM: Facebook has lost a lot of trust. And I think you lose trust quickly and it takes a long time to regain it. So they are working very, very hard towards regaining that trust. And to be fair, Facebook is not the only company that's dealing with this. This is an issue that anybody who profits off of user data has today. And it's going to become a bigger and bigger issue because of the regulatory crackdowns. Those are unavoidable. You can change the narrative but the regulations aren't going away. 

Insights: Facebook Needs Your Trust Almost As Much As It Needs Your Data

Facebook Needs Your Trust

Mark Zuckerberg wants to talk about how Facebook is changing. (May 2019)

We really wanted to look at what Facebook is doing to address some of its recent issues, but not only through the lens of the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In some of the other problems that it's currently dealing with, like bad content that's proliferated on the platform. We really wanted to look at it as a business story, and that really has to do with its core product it ability or inability to keep innovating. And we went in and met with both Mark Zuckerberg, Cheryl Sandberg and other people on the executive team at the company and goddess Clint's a different ways that they are trying to turn their attention and re prioritized around. Currently, the big shift is moving from a reactive model of how we're handling this stuff, where people in our community flag something when they see it to one word. We are building systems, get head shift. Israel want company here about the money and the people there and some of the stuff, you know. Look, we didn't have any team on fake news for years, you know? I'm not sure people were aware of it. I don't have any out of any company had some of that very brand new when we were just gonna start out in a door, you couldn't have done a lot of stuff that way. Could have had 30,000 people or any of the people of proactively content the aye aye be ableto find things that could be potentially harmful. Just really, I wish we'd gotten We've done it a couple of years sooner, but I think a lot of really we can do now. And it's just about making sure that we invested. Facebook has lost a lot of trust on. I think you lose trust quickly, and it takes a long time to regain it. So they are working very, very hard toward regaining that trust. And to be fair, Facebook is not the only company that dealing with this is an issue that anybody who profits off of user data has today, and it's going to become a bigger and bigger issue because of the regulatory crackdown. Those are unavoidable. You can change the narrative, but the regulations aren't going away

[MUSIC PLAYING] JOWAN OSTERLUND: My name is Jowan Osterlund. I'm the founder and CEO of Biohax International. Biohax International is basically providing an ID platform all on a ultra-secure blockchain platform combined with a embedded microchip. We're providing the strongest and coolest identity platform to date. I've just always been really fascinated by technological integration in the body, and just the symbiosis between technology and humans. I mean, we've been doing it since the '60s. The pacemaker kind of get you up to status quo if you're broken. Moving on from not broken to just a little bit more effective, use tech. Instead of building everything on the outside, just tweak it a bit and make yourself, improve yourself. PEO STROMBERG: Yes. JOWAN OSTERLUND: Bag of tricks. My first client was one of my best friends, Magnus. He's a senior solution architect at Red Hat. The first thing we did was, he wrote and passed a text to his chip, and I put a call trigger on mine. So whenever I put my phone on my arm, it would call my wife. Sort of a crowd pleaser. [CHUCKLES] The entire vision of sovereign identity, and putting this on blockchain, protecting data, and just-- it wasn't there. It was more of a novelty kind of project, thinking, this is going to be awesome. PEO STROMBERG: As I see it, the chip that I implanted today, this is just an extremely convenient way to get access to your wallet. To have an implant in your hand, or where you want to place it, is just the smoothest way to avoid having cards, or using your phone, or et cetera. JOWAN OSTERLUND: RFID, or radio frequency identification, has a standard that's called NFC, so near-field communication. Near-field communication is when you kind of tap a card. Some countries in Europe are ahead of others, but the infrastructure's already there. So bus, transportation. We already have NFC chips in all the passports, and all the IDs are moving towards NFC in driver's licenses. The most common fears with the technology would be, it's a tracking device, or it's as a controlled device. I'd say it's the direct opposite. This is the one thing that can get you in complete control of your digital identity. And you can manage the entire preference to anything you like. The reason it cannot track you is because it's passive, so it never emits anything until you choose to use it in very, very, very close proximity to a working device. The system needs to know that you've chosen to have this token represent you, instead of a plastic card, or a key fob, or a key, or whatever. We're not going to know anything about the data because we don't govern the blockchain. We don't decide. We can't control it. All we ever going to know is the amount of data that's circulating so you can put the right resources in the right place. PEO STROMBERG: If you start to chip people like you do with your pets, of course, it could be intrusive. But again, I'm doing this on a voluntary basis. I share the information that I want to share. I can see that this technology can be used in a variety of different applications, but right now, the most slight thing is just use it to open the office. If you travel with the state-owned railway, you can have your priority card with you in your hands. You just use your chip instead. JOWAN OSTERLUND: In Sweden, it's getting more commonplace. But there's still the, over my dead body, Big Brother, I would never let my employer chip me. It's not the employer chipping you. It's you telling the employer to get up to speed and integrate this. PEO STROMBERG: Discussing the RSA 252 encryption layers, blah, blah, blah, that doesn't mean anything to people. But showing that you can do something with a chip in your hand, that really wows people. So I think that is one of the good things of being an ambassador, so to speak. JOWAN OSTERLUND: We could sign up 50 people basically in a couple of weeks, and have them ready in January to start going wild. If we just put a couple of hundred grand behind a marketing campaign, we'd have 100,000 users within a year. But the thing is, right now, there's no regulation protecting the user. So I think it's up to us to make it robust and safe for everyone before letting it become huge. I mean, I'm using almost 20 years of professional body piercing and other insights from that industry to make this as foolproof as possible. In 20 years, it's going to be de facto. It's going to be a standard. There's going to be talk not if you get a biochip, rather, what type of chip you're getting. Like different styles of clothing, rather than, do you have a chip? What chip do you have? Bloop, bloop, bloop. So next design is going to be as small, and just way more effective, and secure, and cooler, and connected to crypto, and fiat payment, and e-ID. It's going to be awesome. PEO STROMBERG: You can feel that you have some-- something is not what it used to be. But then in a day, I won't feel anything, so it's just pure fun. 

Insights: Could Biochipping Catch On?

It can revolutionize the way people interact with the world.

Could Biochipping Catch On?

Jowan Österlund, founder and CEO of Biohax International, believes that microchipping can revolutionize the way people interact with the world. (January 2019)

My name is John is I'm the founder of CEO of Bio Hack International by International providing an i d platform all on ah ultra secure Blockchain platform combined with the embedded microchip, we're providing the strongest and call this identity platform today. I just always been really fascinated by technological integration in the body and kind of the justice symbiosis between technology and humans. I mean, we've been we've been doing it since the sixties. I mean, the pacemaker kind of get you upto status quo. If you're broken, moving on from not broken toe, just a little bit more effective, use tech instead of building everything on the outside, you know, tweak it a bit. Make yourself improve yourself. My first client was one of my best friend, Magnus. He's a senior solution architect at Red Hat. The first thing we did was, uh, he wrote and pass a text to his chip, and I put a call trigger on mine. So whenever I put my phone in my arm, that would call my wife crowd pleaser entire vision of sovereign identity and putting this on Blockchain protecting data. And it wasn't There was more of ah novelty kind of project thinking. This is gonna be awesome. As I see the chip that I planted today. This is just on extremely convenient way to get access to your wallet. Have an interest in your hand or you want to face it. Way to avoid having cards or using your phone. Or, if I D or radio frequency identification has the standard that's called NFC, so near field communication near field communication is when you kind of tap a cart. Some countries of Europe are ahead of others, but the infrastructure is already there. So but transportation way already have any chips and all the passports in all the ideas were moving towards NFC and driver's licenses, the most common fierce and the technology would be. It's a tracking device. Or so it's the control device. I mean, I'd say it's the direct opposite this the one thing that can get you and complete control of your digital identity, and you can manage entire preference, anything you like. The reason it cannot track you is because its passage, so it never admit anything until you choose to use it, and very, very, very close proximity to working device. The system needs to know that you've chosen tohave this token represent you instead of a plastic card or a key fall Boracay or whatever. We're not gonna know anything about the data. We don't govern the Blockchain. We don't decide we can't control it all we ever gonna know that the amount of data that's circulating so you can put the right resource is in the right place If you start to chip people like you do with your pets on course to be pictured But again, I'm doing doing this voluntarily basis I share the information that I want to share. I can't say that this technology can be used in a variety of different applications, but right now, the most likely thing is just using it. Open the office. If you travel with the state on the railway, you can have your pyre to called with you in your hands. You just use your chip instead in Sweden, just getting more commonplace. But this still over my dead body Big Brother would never let my employer chip me. It's not the employees you're tipping you. It's you telling the employer get up to speed and integrate this discussing the R I to 5 to 10 Crip ation layers, blah, blah. That doesn't mean anything to people about showing that you could do something with a chip in your hand that way. Wow, people. So I think that is one of the things being an ambassador. We get signed up 50 people basically in a couple of weeks and have them ready in January to start going wild. If we just put a couple of 100 grand behind, a marketing campaign would have 100,000 users within a year. But the thing is, right now there's no regulation for taking the user. So I think it's up to us to kind of make it robust and safe for for everyone before letting it become huge. Mean. I'm using almost 20 years of professional body piercing and other insights from that industry to make. This is proof of a possible 20 years. It's gonna be the fact that it's gonna be a standard. There's gonna be talk. Not if you get a bite. Your brother what type of chip you're getting, like different styles of clothing rather than do you have what chip? So next design is gonna be s small on. Just way more effective. Your cooler connected crypto Fiat payment on E I. D. You can feel that you have some something Not what it used to be, but and in the day I won't feel anything so

[MUSIC PLAYING] TIM COOK: It is time for the rest of the world, including my home country, to follow your lead. We at Apple are in full support of a comprehensive federal privacy law in the United States. There and everywhere it should be rooted in four essential rights. First, the right to have personal data minimum. Companies should challenge themselves to de-identify customer data or not to collect in the first place. Second, the right to knowledge. Users should always know what data is being collected and what it is being collected for. This is the only way to empower users to decide what collection is legitimate and what isn't. Anything less is a sham. Third, the right to access. Companies should recognize that data belongs to users, and we should all make it easy for users to get a copy of, correct, and delete their personal data. And fourth, the right to security. Security is foundational to trust and all other privacy rights. For artificial intelligence to be truly smart, it must respect human values, including privacy. If we get this wrong, the dangers are profound. We can achieve both great artificial intelligence and great privacy standards. It is not only a possibility, it is a responsibility. Our own information, from the everyday to the deeply personal, is being weaponized against us with military officials. Every day, billions of dollars change hands, and countless decisions are made on the basis of our likes and dislikes, our friends and families, our relationships and conversation, our wishes and fears, our hopes and dreams. [CHIME] 

Insights: Tim Cook Says 'Our Own Information Is Being ‘Weaponized’ Against Us'

His remarks were made at data protection conference. 

Tim Cook Says Our Data Is Being ‘Weaponized’ Against Us

He spoke at Conference of Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners in Belgium. (October 2018)

calling. Really, We have Apple or of a federal private law in the United States there and everywhere. It should be rooted in right. You have personal data challenge we're not collecting. You know what? It's the only way. Users, What collection is legitimate and what Anything. Shame right back should recognize that data belong to you. And we should all make it easy for you to get a copy. Correct and and four right Security. It's foundational truck and all for our people intelligence to be, including If we get this wrong, the dangers are we get a bow, great artificial intelligence and break only information from the every day being weapon with military. Every day, billions of dollars changed hands and remain on the basis of our life over friends, family, our relationship conversation, our wishes, our home and grim.

[MUSIC PLAYING] JENNIFER ZHU SCOTT: They brought up a very important question, a point, which is the point I feel very passionate about, which is data ownership. If you think about all the mess Facebook got himself into, with the Cambrige Analytic centralized the data ownership. And the European, EU's response is let's regulate. By regulation, basically, you have to have a broad brush with no consideration of a nuance. However, privacy is a very nuanced issue. What's private to me, compared to what's private to you is very different. And also if you think about ownership, the full ownership in the legal term, you really have to be able to hold it, sell it, and the price you prefer, gift it, or destroy it. And that's a full ownership. So when the regulators say data ownership is supposed to be individual, then what? I can't do anything with that. So one thing quite a few startups were supporting, they started looking to how to use blockchain to give that pricing power back to individual. And I think that's going to be a multibillion dollar business opportunity. Will Google and Facebook fight it? Of course. But if you pay attention to-- I was alluding to this yesterday-- pay attention to what Tim Cook's been saying, pay attention to what some of the brightest of tech leaders saying, I think that inflection point is already here in terms of how we going to manage this data ownership. And I think also this conference is so much about AI. And one point we're not touching on is UBI, universal basic income. How do we approach universal basic icome? This is a very heated debate. I actually debate about UBI, against UBI, in Oxford Union, not because I don't support that individual people, if they don't get a job, they shouldn't be helped, but because I don't think there will be a sensible economic model for governments to produce UBI. However, if we give the pricing power to individual, and in the AI economy, where data is really the fuel of AI economy, then selling data is potential income source for UBI. LEI CHEN: I add a couple of color to this topic. SPEAKER: Please. LEI CHEN: According to Pew, 91% of Americans believe that they don't-- they have lost control of their data. And there was an article a few days ago written by Ash Carter, the former Secretary of Defense, saying that technology need to be aligned with a public purpose. I think that's very true to our technologists. Without a real public purpose, I think there will be less enthusiasm, from me at least, to push the envelope. But together, with the same purpose, I think the industry will eventually grow and flourish. [CHIME]

Insights: Personal Data Ownership Should Be Aligned with Public Purpose

How technology and data regulation can be used for good. 

Data Ownership Should Be Aligned with Public Purpose

Jennifer Zhu Scott, Founding Principal of Radian Partners, and Lei Chen, CEO of XunLei, discuss how technology and data regulation can be used for the public good. (November 2018)

WeII brought up a very important question, you know, point, which is the point I feel very passionate about, which is data ownership. If you think about all the mess you know Facebook got himself into with the Cambridge Emily and Electric Eyes Central s data ownership and the Europeans used responses. Okay, let's regulate regulation. Basically, you have to have a broad brush with no consideration of in nuance. However, privacy is a very nuanced issue. What's private to me? Come here to what's private use very different. So the and also, if you think about ownership, the full ownership in the legal term, you really have to be able to hold it. Sellers and the price you prefer, gifted or destroy it not a full ownership. So when the regulators say OK, data own, you know, ownership, supposed to be individuals. Know what? I can do anything with that right? They're wanting a lot of quite a few, Um uh, startups with supporting that starts looking thio how to use a blotch and to give the pricing power back to individual. And I think that's going to be multi $1,000,000,000 business opportunity. Will Google and Facebook fight it off course. But if you pay attention to, you know, I was alluding into this yesterday. Listen, Ginger. What Tim Cook being saying? Pay attention to what? You know, some of the brightest, the attack leaders saying I think the inflection point is already here in terms of how we gonna manage this data ownership. And I think also this conference so much about a I and one point we're not touching on is the FBI, Universal basic income. You know, how do we approach universal basic income is very debate, actually debate about you via against u B I in Oxford Union. Not because I don't support that individual people. If they don't get a job, they shouldn't be helped. But because I don't think there will be a sensible economic model for government to produce you, be I. However, if we give the pricing power to individual and in the aye aye economy, where data is really the fuel off economy, then selling data is potential income. All sorts for you, B I I had a couple of color to this topic. According to Pew, 91% of the markings believe that they don't have lost control of their data. And, uh, there was an article a few days ago returned by Ash Carter, the former secretary of defense, and saying that technology need to be a line that was a public purpose. I think that very true to our technologies without, ah real public purpose, I think there will be less into this from me at least to push the envelope. But, uh, together with the with the same purpose, I think the industry will eventually grow on the flattery.

[MUSIC PLAYING] Our view of privacy started from our values, and then we crafted our business model to that. It didn't start with one and then we backed into oh, well, we feel good about this one. And as you say, we've felt strongly about privacy when no one cared. And so this is isn't something that we woke up one morning and said, oh, the media is focusing on privacy today. Let's do that. We've felt very strongly on this issue from the beginning, because we could see not the specific details, but we could see that the building of the detailed profile on people likely would result in significant harm over time, that it could be used for too many nefarious things. And we think that people in today's environment don't have a full view of who has what, and how much of their lives is open to-- has been opened to commercial entities and public entities. 

Insights: Tim Cook: "We Felt Strongly About Privacy When No One Cared"

The company has recognized data concerns for years.

Tim Cook: "We Felt Strongly About Privacy When No One Cared"

Cook says the company has recognized data concerns for years. (June 2018)

Insights: The Data Ownership Crisis

Insights: Regulation is Coming for Tech's Behemoths

Latest video

Whether Apple, Google, or Facebook, it’s clear legislators, regulators, and consumer advocates are fed up with big tech companies.

Videos (8 videos)

Insights: Regulation is Coming for Tech's Behemoths

Insights: Is Data Regulation Hurting Tech Innovation?

Insights: IBM's CEO Wants 'Precision Regulation for Big Data

Insights: Facebook Needs Your Trust Almost As Much As It Needs Your Data

Insights: Could Biochipping Catch On?

Insights: Tim Cook Says 'Our Own Information Is Being ‘Weaponized’ Against Us'

Insights: Personal Data Ownership Should Be Aligned with Public Purpose

Insights: Tim Cook: "We Felt Strongly About Privacy When No One Cared"