S4 Cybersecurity and Government
Cybersecurity and Government
Provide a 275-words discussion on Video transcript below.
The Future of Technology: Meeting of the Minds.
Cybersecurity & Government (01:37)
From Title: The Future of Technology: Meeting of the Minds
Chief Information Officer of the United States, Vivek Kundra, voices the President’s commitment to cyber security. The idea of a militarized Internet is a topic of discussion.
APA citation: The future of technology: Meeting of the minds [Video file]. (2010). In Films On Demand. Retrieved May 18, 2015, from https://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=7967&xtid=47314
Hi. I’m Jim Gillespie, president and CEO of Coldwell Banker Real Estate.
Technology. It’s the power source and growth engine for the future. In order for every business to keep pace in the future, leaders will need to embrace technology to create opportunity, growth, and prosperity
Innovation has, and always will be, a driving force that changes the way we think, live, and do business around the world. And with it, the possibilities are endless. Tonight, we are honored to present “Meeting of the Minds: The Future of Technology.” Enjoy.
Technology. America’s last, best hope for power and prosperity Our last chance to maintain global dominance–
Cyber security fastest growing industry in the country.
Cyber attacks against Google’s Gmail.
I want the music, music.
Or a monster of our own creation, only making us more vulnerable? These are the two faces of technology.
On one, the boundless optimism of a plugged-in planet. P On the other, a threat to the safety of us all. At risk, our children coming of age isolated. Adrift in a sea of data, unable to create communities.
As our attention slackens at home, new villains sharpen their focus. Tech savvy terrorists hacking through our weak web defenses, with the power to shut down cities in a matter of minutes.
Can America continue to prosper if it can’t even protect itself? And how do we wrest control away from our own creation before it controls us? Tonight the biggest names in industry and government come together to answer those questions and light a path forward in “Meeting of the Minds: The Future of Technology.”
Good evening. I’m Maria Bartiromo. Tonight I’m joined by an extraordinary panel of leaders and visionaries from the business world, our federal government, and academia. Thank you all for being here tonight. We so appreciate your time.
Earlier this year, former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told a Senate committee, and here’s a quote, “If we were in a cyber war today, the United States would lose.”
Vivek, as our first ever federal Chief Information Officer, are we ready for such a potential threat?
Well, let me tell you what the administration is already doing in this space. The President recognizes the threat to national security when it comes to cyber security. Because of that, we’ve got a four star general who’s going to be looking at the cyber security issues under one umbrella.
And a big part of that is recognizing that cyber security is not the responsibility of one entity or individual. From the people who are manufacturing chips, to the companies that are selling networks, to the companies that are making investments across the board, to people who are educating the 21st century workforce–
But we’ve got reports of Chinese hacking into Google and getting information. How do you manage it?
So I think it’s a false choice. If what we’re saying is we want to have a militarized internet, we need to separate between command and control United States military functions from a national security perspective versus a broader economy. Because what we want to be able to do is make sure that we’ve got an environment, an open internet, that becomes a driver for innovation. That becomes a driver for prosperity.
Once you militarize the internet, you can have it and we’ll go build another one.
But when I was in China recently, I was told, Maria, don’t bring your BlackBerry because as soon as you enter Chinese airspace, as soon as you enter Russian airspace, wherever you’re going, they have access to all your information. They could go into your Rolodex. They can go into your calendar.
I mean, that’s scary. Maybe I don’t want them to have access to all my stuff!
My advice to you is in China, don’t take your cell phone and don’t turn it on.
Right, exactly. I don’t.
When you talk about hacking Google, it’s Google’s responsibility not to get hacked. I certainly don’t want to pay taxes for one of the richest companies in the world–
Right, that’s a good point.
-to have an ineffective organization called the government–
It’s a great point.
-make Google’s data safe. Let Google make Google’s own data safe.
And frankly, they’re the people to do it. They’ve got the talent. They’re going to hack, we’re going to create defences for hacking.
If you look at our corporation, we harden our data. We have in two sites. We store it every day. We encrypt it. And we think that’s safe enough right now.
But again, you have to protect your own data. You don’t talk in a public train. And you have to be very careful about spreading your data around. The internet’s open. And to make it not open is, in effect, to crash the First Amendment.
But I’m not sure people always understand, particularly when they use the internet. It is educational, in terms of what really is in the public domain versus what they think is in a more limited network. Which then they find out it is not.
As we become more dependent on the flexibility and openness of the internet, I think this next generation of users is aware of those subtleties. I mean you yourself might not choose to use a cell phone because you are aware of that level of technology. On the same token, social media and these more open systems, these users are aware of what it means when they post that to the public.
What we don’t want to do– and the President has been clear– is that government should not and must not monitor private networks. What is the right solution as we think about privacy in the context of more and more information moving to the digital world? The ability to think about privately identifiable data, not just as your name, your address, but also with GPS, your location, social networks, all your friends. These are the issues as a society that we have to confront.
Padmasree, you’re the CTO of Cisco. I mean obviously, you’re dealing with these issues every day. How do you proactively manage this kind of risk?
I mean, Vivek is talking about the government not snooping. We’ve got other governments perhaps snooping.
I think it’s a great question. And I think that the discussion we’ve been having is really the power of technology. Privacy is not just about isolation anymore. I think that paradigm is over.
We are all, as human beings we have a desire to share and to communicate and to talk and broadcast. And that’s why social networks are so popular. I call it the digital water cooler effect. We want to post and eavesdrop on what somebody else is saying at the water cooler. And I think that desire as human beings is going to continue to be there.
I think that’s right, but I think you need to unpack this a little bit. There are at least three, I mean it’s more complicated than this, but at least three different pieces of this.
One is the national security interest, whether it’s the electricity grid or the air traffic control system or anything like that. I think there’s a very, very important role for the government, in its national security function, to protect that.
The second is at the corporate level, where there is a law enforcement function at work. There’s a lot of theft that goes on there. And I think that’s largely a private function to protect yourself, but there is a law enforcement function government if something is quote, unquote, “stolen” from you.
And then there’s the individual level of this, where people make individual choices. There’s law enforcement function for government there too. But I think in that case, you get into much more of the balance of privacy versus free speech versus social interaction. And there’s very complicated choices to be made there.
But I think there’s three different framed analysis. There’s not just one overall privacy analysis we can use.
That’s very good analysis. I guess we walk this balance of wanting government input on one level, but not wanting regulation of the internet. Jay?
Well, evidence suggests that it’s been able to regulate itself. I mean if you just look at Facebook and some of these privacy concerns that exist, market forces have driven users to the systems that they’re comfortable with.
It’s important that we communicate what these risks are, and that those consumers can make those very good choices, but it has worked. It’s worked for two decades. There’s no reason why it won’t continue to. Whereas, I think this issue of abuse of privacy, data that is being gathered as I’m interacting with sites that I don’t know is being gathered and shared, that is where the risks are.
And the real issue is what is it that we wish to protect? And then how does that architecting need to happen? And then where does public policy come into play?
If you go back to the Facebook example, one goes into Facebook, I’m sharing things with my community of friends. This information is being gathered. But now “somebody” quote, unquote, decides that this information can be broadly shared. Now whose authority is that? And then OK, one says, well I can opt out.
Well,I think TJ says it’s your authority.
Yeah. What are you gonna have, the Department of Facebook Security? We’re gonna have Facebook felonies and Facebook misdemeanors?
The onus is on you.
And I’m just wondering as it becomes easier and easier to just put all of my information out there, how vulnerable our children become?
As an American, you have the right to be ignorant. You have the right to make a mistake. That’s part of living.
What is all of this doing to our children? I mean, it’s having a staggering impact on young people today. And habits are being dictated by the flow of information.
I think these habits, and I have children, and dig.com had 40 million users. I mean, I watch these habits of communication. And really it’s just enhancing an existing set of communication that existed since the beginning of time.
Are you seeing habit changes from your students?
Of course. And our students are all over it. They helped to create some of this stuff. Guitar Hero for instance. But what we don’t really understand though, is the impact of the technology on the social and cognitive development of young people.
What’s at stake?
Well, the risk always is in the unknown. I mean, people worry about people’s social development. But I think there are deeper questions having to do with actual cognition.
With access to all this data, one of the big challenges that we have right now, who’s feeding it to us? In what form? In what order? Is it structured with the knowledge of educational methods?
I mean, that’s one of the dangers. I know my children have access to everything.
And this is the point. Look at people sitting here. What are you? You’re not robots, you’re people. You’re educated people.
And if you don’t have that, there is no innovation. And so we sit here and talk as if technology is a thing all its own. It is a product of the human mind and the human spirit. How it gets used is exactly driven by that same thing.
If I’m putting my information on a social network, give me the permission or the right to decide how much of that information I want to be shared, and who I want that information to be shared with.
I think people have to take care of their own privacy.
The protection of privacy is a discussion we need to have, because the technology is changing so fast that we aren’t able to keep up with it.
BP has the resources. It’s making money hand over fist.
But both points–
And they have the technologies. So I think this blame game is really the wrong perspective when it comes to health and safety regulations.
We’re back with “Meeting of the Minds” and the topic continues to be managing the risk of technology. Seems to me that the BP oil disaster is a great example to explore, everybody. It’s a microcosm of our discussion.
Because on the one hand, great technology to be able to go 5,000 below sea level to explore and find oil to make us less reliant on international oil. And yet look at the major disaster and our environment today with all of that oil gushing. Did technology fail us?
Technology comes out of the mind of people. And people use technology. And if we get ourselves hung up about all that technology can do and not people, we make a mistake.
Well, government failed us as well. Because isn’t somebody supposed to be overseeing? I mean, here’s a British company–
–operating in our waters.
You believe in free markets, you believe that companies should bear risk as well as reward. BP didn’t drill a well for mankind, BP drilled a well to make money for their shareholders.
They would have made billions of dollars. They did some risk mitigation. They had double systems. Second system failed ’cause somebody let a battery go dead. That’s their responsibility. And I sure hope they don’t get bailed out like the companies that recently got bailed out that should also have gone out of business or paid.
Yeah AIG, you bet. So BP should pay. If they have to pay everything they have, then they won’t be a company anymore. And the assets will go into bankruptcy court and be sold off to other companies, and the warning will be very clear.
You must do good risk mitigation. It must be very good, because the disaster is such a consequence it could end your corporation. Think about it. That’s responsibility.
The problem I’ve got is we allow companies to make a profit. And then their buddies in Washington bail them out when they take too much of a risk and go over the edge. That’s the problem to me. BP pays, it’s their fault.
But I think a constructive way–
I think a constructive way to think about this, obviously I think you have to prioritize. Now that it’s happened, what do we do?
So I don’t think it’s a technology that failed, but it’s how the technology was applied. Perhaps it was not as robust as it could have been. So what can we do about it now?
I think obviously the first priority is to control what’s happened, help the people that are impacted. Because I don’t think this is a short-term consequence. I think the consequence will be over a long period, some we probably don’t even know.
It was a great opportunity for a public/ private sector partnership, for companies to come together, all kinds of technology companies to come together and assess longer term what’s the impact gonna be and how can we fix? And how can we prevent this from happening again?
I think there’s almost two sets of focus that we can do. First, how do you stop what’s already happening to further continue? And what do you do with the long term consequence?
And while I believe that any company should bear the consequence of their decision, the difficulty tends to be that the company alone, and its shareholders alone, don’t bear the consequence. People do.
And so it’s fine to say, let BP go down, and suffer whatever the results are. But at the same time, you have people whose whole way of life has been–
No, they’re get hired by somebody else.
Well, they may be. But that’s not our choice.
It’s not like if you don’t work for BP, you get zapped like a bug and evaporate. If you don’t work for BP, you go to work for another oil company.
TJ, I think you’re missing a point here.
And the NUMMI people from Toyota and Silicon Valley went to other companies.
You’re missing a point. I’m not talking about BP employees. I’m talking about the people who are dependent on the whole fisheries industry.
Shirley’s right, but–
The people who lived in those communities.
They would be compensated.
I think there is an accountability, and there’s a resolution.
There’s accountability, clearly. I think the company who owns the technology–
Exactly, has to be accountable.
But there is a, what do you do as a follow up?
And how do you fix what’s happened? Or how do you make things better? Or how do you even understand?
The Gulf is a lesson that we shouldn’t be investing this kind of capital in that supply chain. We should be building the alternative supplies on alternative energies, alternative vehicles. And they’re going to come in and provide the jobs that we need. All the BP employees that are working on those rigs that are risking their lives should have been spending their time in another–
You know what? Solar is not gonna drive your car. Wind is not gonna fly the plane. So we are reliant on oil.
This one rig was one, I think I’ve got the number right, of 1700 rigs currently operating in deep water in the Gulf, only one of which made a mistake.
Let me just going to finish this. If you’re going to fundamentally change an entire industry because one out of 1700 had a error.
Yeah, you did. You do. Is it too far to ask for robust risk assessment?
No, of course not.
Is it too much to ask for scenario planning and risk mitigation strategies to be developed?
I think those are all the right things.
Is it too far to say that there should be some R&D done to understand the marine environment and the impact of the mitigation of–
But my point– I agree with you entirely.
But there are rules of the road. I mean, Vivek, what were the rules of the road? And how is it possible that this has occurred?
Well clearly, this is a very serious issue and a huge failure. And I think what we’re seeing here, and what we’re missing here, is a human story of people who’ve been in the Gulf, who spent generation after generation, whether it’s fishing, whether it’s providing service in that region. Now all of a sudden, they’re facing an environment, not because they made a mistake, but you had a company that went out there, made a mistake in terms of how they’re mitigating risk.
So who’s watching out for them?
Well, this is where the government is thinking about what we can do, in terms of thinking about short term unemployment and what benefits we can provide. But this is a catastrophic event with a very high human cost that we keep discounting.
I think that’s after the fact, though. Vivek, once it’s happened, definitely there’s a role for all of us to play. What can we do to bring the community back or help the community?
There’s definitely a human element to it. I think Shirley’s point is how do you prevent this? And how could you have prevented this from happening?
And so it’s not after the fact. These people have already been impacted. They have already lost livelihood, probably will lose it for generations. And what do we do about that?
You can never have a 100% guarantee that things will not happen. But what you can demand is that people at least assess, and as much as they can, quantify the risks and develop both risk mitigation and actual mitigation strategies.
TJ, you’ve called yourself Mr. Free Market. Do you agree?
I think regulation to demand proper disaster planning is a reasonable thing to do. Course, you ask yourself, is it really gonna happen?
First of all, the assumption here is that BP didn’t do it, and I don’t think that’s true. I think we find a lot of planning that they did. It clearly was faulty.
Second assumption is somehow I create a new government department. Wasn’t Mining & Minerals the head of this organization anyway? Why did that government organization exist for years with oversight to the oil industry, and not develop the system? They were there. We were paying their checks, yet we didn’t have it.
So the assumption that somehow we create a bureaucracy in Washington, DC, and all of a sudden oil drilling gets safe, I don’t buy that one. But yes, I do believe that having robust disaster planning is right.
Now the consequence for it may be more, something like a bond. Gee, you’re gonna drill there. Well, that place is right near all of these things. There could be a disaster of magnitude X.
Therefore, you will post a bond if you want to drill there. And that bond will be used to compensate people.
At the end of the day, you can con any regulatory agency you want. You can fill out their forms the way they like to look at them, and they’ll say everything is safe right up till everything isn’t safe. The company has to take personal responsibility and make sure that is right and take consequences if they mess it up.
Let me say this to you though, because this is in one case where I’m not gonna just let you beat up on the quote, unquote, “government bureaucrats”. Because there’s enormous pressure that comes from the very industries that are regulated on those very regulatory agencies. The real issue has to do with what the go-forward strategy is.
And I do think the President is focused on what the go-forward strategy needs to be. But there are gonna be a lot of lessons learned. But in the end, they do boil down to the fact that the technology is not just that you apply on the one side having to do with drilling, but there’s the whole set of technologies that in fact, have to do with risk assessment and risk mitigation.
We do a pretty good job in the FAA. For example, regulating airline safety. We lose some airplanes, but we do a pretty job. It’s not impossible, I would agree, it’s not impossible to create a good regulatory agency. I’m just saying, part of my tax money went to Mineral &– what is it?
Mineral & Mining for years. And they were asleep at the switch. Now they were also taking gifts from the industry. There’s a little bit too cozy of a relationship.
To me, it’s as much of a government failure as it is a BP failure in that way. There was a regulatory bias.
In the end, BP is the gorilla. BP has the resources. It’s making money hand over fist.
But both points–
And they have the technologies. So I think this blame game is really the wrong perspective when it comes to health and safety regulations.
I’d make two–
It really has to be a conjoined effort here.
We know that this new CEO of BP was brought in precisely because they had safety problems in their refining part of their assets. So it might well be that this is a company problem. Not an individual problem, or a technology problem, but actually a company problem. Which is consistent with part of what you said.
On the other hand, we typically go from regulatory inattention, combined with a lot of innovation in associated industries, some sort of problem of crisis proportions, and then we overreact. And the thing I’m worried about right now is the regulatory overreaction that just in a time period when we need to move forward energy independence, lower costs of energy, diversifying our sources of energy, et cetera, et cetera.
Energy security. Better way of putting it.
Because we exist in a global market.
That we overreact. That there are regulatory overreactions.
These are the issues, and they apply to all industries. We’ll be right back.
What we’re gonna be able to see, in terms of innovations in the last decade, are gonna pale in comparison to what’s about to be unleashed in the next 10 years.
What America needs to do to stay on top is to educate, invest, and innovate.
Technology is a tool. It is a process, a catalyst. It takes leadership and people to keep US on top.
I don’t ever get up in the morning worrying about Singapore. I get up in the morning worrying about China. I get up in the morning worrying about Japan. I get up in the morning worrying more about the people that are around me that are very competitive.
What are you worried about?
Who’s going to really compete with you, and really take away your business.
Welcome back to “Meeting of the Minds: The Future of Technology.” Singapore and Hong Kong have left the US in a distant third place when it comes to the top spots in ranking of the most competitive nations in the world. Amazing that we’re talking about America and the innovation in this country, and you look abroad in Asia and you see real advancement there. How important is technology when it comes to the global status of America?
We always take these polls and say, so-and-so said America’s in third place behind Hong Kong and Singapore. Who said that? Some magazine. Some guy with a– you know, a reporter.
Are you telling me you haven’t heard the criticism that America is losing competitiveness on the global stage?
TJ, no. Are you saying you haven’t heard that?
I’ve heard it. I don’t believe it.
Singapore is a don’t care on the scale of California, let alone the United States. We have people in Singapore, and we sell there, and they make wafers there.
But Singapore, I don’t ever get up in the morning worrying about Singapore. I get up in the morning worrying about China. I get up in the morning worrying about Japan. I get up in the morning worrying more about the people that are around me that are very competitive.
What are you worried about?
Who’s going to really compete with you and really take away your business. When you’re knocking heads trying to sell chips into the global market, who do you have to worry about? And it’s not Singapore, and it’s not Hong Kong. And I see them as being well-educated, highly technical societies. But they’re small and they don’t matter that much in the world scale of technology.
So how do we stay here?
So I think Maria–
That’s all I’m asking. How do we stay number one?
Yeah, I think it’s a fact that higher education, college education, research, graduate school, US is clearly the leader. I mean, I came to this country to go to graduate school. I went to one of the best schools in India, but I still left my country, my whole family, came to the United States to be a graduate student here on a stipend. And I stayed here.
And I think that is still, by and large, true. I think we still attract the best brains in the world to come here and to innovate at the higher education level. And I’m talking about college, universities, research, et cetera.
Jay, how important is technology when it comes to the global status of America?
It comes back to people using the technology. It comes back to this issue of education. Because really in order for us to compete on the global scale, I can come up with all sorts of platforms and tools and iPhone SDKs and everything else. And it’s useless if I don’t have the people educated to use these platforms and innovate us to the next level.
People are afraid to take risks. They’re afraid to invest in companies that push the edge and push the outer envelope. Part of that, frankly, is just we need more people doing it. It’s a volume problem, and if we can get more investment, more educated people getting out of these schools who are willing to take these risks, I think that we can compete globally.
But it’s also a fact that it’s a connected world now. Our economies are connected. What happens in the US, or what happens in Europe, affects us. What happens in India affects us. What happens in China affect us.
Vivek, are you afraid that America has lost its mojo on the global stage? Are we losing some competitiveness?
Well look, I think with a great idea and the spirit of innovation, America is still the best country on the planet to be able to take that idea, scale it, and compete globally. The challenge we face is our education system needs to be reformed. We need to get more people in the United States who are focused on science, technology, engineering, mathematics.
It’s the American people, and the ingenuity of the American people that have lead this country to breakthrough after breakthrough. And I think as we look at the numbers, we educate over 30,000 engineers. China and India educates over 300,000 engineers a year. What we need to make sure as we look at the next decade, the next century, is that we continue to make these investments in education, that we continue to be the most innovative country on the planet.
And we need to make sure that we have a healthy ecosystem and a community of innovators within the United States, and of course look at comprehensive immigration reform. When we think about the engineers that come in, get educated in our universities, yet as soon as they get their degree, they go back to their home country.
Are we doing it? Are we doing it?
He made two very important points. One is, America is still the very best place to create and commercialize technology.
And two, immigrants, now on the short end of public opinion, are a great part– we have two people from India here– a great part of the innovation engine in the United States. And when we turn them away, I mean, we could have turned away Albert Einstein at the beginning of World War II as an immigrant. That would’ve been real smart.
I’m one who believes we shouldn’t talk ourselves down. We should think about, what are those things that have made the United States successful in the past? And then we need to be hitting on those cylinders.
And we need to make the investments irrespective of the fragility of the economy. Because others are doing it.
I think about Hong Kong as what it is today, which is a province of China since 1997. It’s not an independent country.
They are now the wealthiest country at the macroeconomic level, in the world. They have a massive trade surplus. They have government budget surpluses except during this year when they didn’t want to stimulate. And they have 40% savings rates.
You look at the United States, we’re running massive government deficits. We have massive trade deficits. We have basically zero savings rates, they’ve popped up to 5%. We’ve gone from the world’s largest creditor to the world’s largest debtor, and we’re issuing sovereign rate at a stunning clip.
Vivek, do you have these discussions about insuring what government’s role is, as China rises? As India rises?
Absolutely. We talk about this and we’ve taken concrete steps in terms of making sure that we preserve the United States position. And at the same time, we’re putting the right fuel in place in our broader economy, to make sure that we are creating the jobs of the future, that we are innovating for the 21st century.
But these jobs and these breakthroughs are not gonna be created by the government. The government’s role is to make sure that it creates a right condition, that it focuses on public education, making sure that we’re making the right investment, and that we’ve got the right policies in place.
I think the other thing that is unique about the United States is the ability and the hunger we have to continue to innovate. The existence of Silicon Valley and Boston and New York and Dallas corridor. All these regions that we have in the country that are really hot beds for innovation. That requires a unique ecosystem of large companies, venture capital, start ups, great universities.
I think that is something magical about this country. I think those two are continuing to make sure, those two factors. If we maintain the health in those that were in a leadership position.
But it’s also a fact that it’s a connected world now. Our economies are connected. What happens in the US, or what happens in Europe affects us. What happens in India affects us. What happens in China affects us.
So we can’t really isolate and say everything is going to be restricted to one part of the world or the other. I think that is no longer true. But I think what we have to do is figure out how do we harness the fact that markets are really global now, and innovation is truly happening all around the world, and how do we tap into that? I think that is a challenge we have.
How do we do it?
I think from our point of view, if you look at it, there’s different types of solutions. There are some countries that are what we call hypergrowth countries, which are populations much younger. If you look 50 years from now, it’s the countries in Africa and India that are gonna have younger population.
So as these consumers and workforce comes online, they’re gonna have a requirement for a very different types of solutions, like using technology for wellness, perhaps, or education. But as there are countries like the United States that are aging or shrinking even. Developed countries that are going to require solutions that are more about health care, perhaps.
Or how do you boost productivity? How you use technology to drive productivity? So I think there is a difference in the types of innovation that will be required. And we have to invest, if we want to maintain leadership as a country, we have to invest in both sets.
We do wish to remain a globally preeminent, many would say the globally preeminent country, but certainly globally preeminent. And we will, if we keep our confidence and believe and continue to act on those things that in fact have worked for us.
Education is a key part of that. You don’t have human capital without that. But we’ve got to stop just talking about what’s wrong with K through 12. We better fix what’s wrong.
That’s absolutely right.
I think that’s a great point.
You are absolutely right. We’ll be right back.
Competition is always there and it is a good thing.
Too big to fail, I don’t believe in it. Nine out of 10 companies in Silicon Valley failed. The one that’s left over is Google or Apple. And it matters.
Let companies duke it out. Don’t subsidize them and make them weak. And don’t regulate them and hold them back.
Technology and innovation, in and of itself, obsoletes large companies and enables the creation of new smaller companies.
If you have a place where you can invest that’s doubling in size every year, it’s an extraordinary opportunity. And I think it’s the biggest addressable market of our lifetime.
It’s been the biggest opportunity already. Four billion cellphones versus a billion PCs. Which is unbelievable.
Welcome back. Let’s go around the table now. What’s next in technology? Where will innovation take us in the next 10 years? Glenn?
We are on the cusp of what I believe is the largest technology trend of our lifetimes, and maybe of all time. Which is broadband wireless mobility. If you look at any major consumer product, whether it’s credit cards, bank accounts, automobiles, even PCs installed. 25 years in the PC trend, 30 years, there are about a billion PCs at use in the world today. There are already four billion handsets.
And the use of the network itself that all these handsets run over, is doubling every year. There are services, content, and applications that run over them, exploding. Huge populations that have never been wired, connected to the world, on the grid, are being connected at rates that are just mind boggling.
And if you have a place where you can invest that’s doubling in size every year, it’s an extraordinary opportunity. And I think it’s the biggest addressable market of our lifetime.
It’s been the biggest opportunity already. Four billion cellphones versus a billion PCs. Which is unbelievable. Padma, what is the biggest–
No, I totally agree with what Glenn said. But I think that fundamentally my view drives three things that I think will transform everything we do.
The first is probably foundational to that is the fact that the internet is moving from the desktop to the mobile to becoming more industrial. So I think that is where the industrial internet in terms of multiple devices connecting to it. How can we make buildings smarter? How can we make roads smarter? How can we provide citizen services in a very different way?
I think there will be a lot of opportunity there. Supporting that, I also believe that video will be the next killer app, if you want to think about it. And we started with text-based communication.
I think video, what we are doing today, if you think about how can we do the same thing in classrooms and in universities, in hospitals for a doctor to interact with the patient very differently, that clearly YouTube is just the beginning. I think we’ll move more toward interactive TV, interactive health, there’s a lot of opportunity there.
And the third thing is collaboration. How do you bring together the experts in the world?
We talked about BP and what can we do differently when a crisis happens? That’s when you really have a real time need of bringing experts together and having technology be a tool for those experts to work together. So in my view it is smart cities, it’s video, it’s collaboration.
TJ, next big thing?
My company sells chips. And they’re the– as Jerry Sanders once said– the crude oil of electronics. In every gadget on this table there are chips.
Our biggest sales right now are in the cell phones and mobile appliances. So yeah, that’s going to be big.
But to me, that’s visible. I’m looking for what’s over the horizon, because everybody’s fighting for what’s visible.
So if I look forward, one of the most exciting things about my job is I haven’t got a clue to pontificate what is 24 months out, I mean really different. Would I have ever said some kid who’s 1/3 my age would invent a thing called Facebook and become a multi-billionaire? Would I ever even contemplated that happening? Never.
Having said all that, coming back since you want one thing to talk about in the future, we have free energy in the form of solar and wind. Problem is it turns on and off.
Therefore, something we need badly is to store that energy. So I think battery and other energy storing technologies that would allow us to use renewable energy 24 by 7 will be a big part of the future.
Cloud computing is an area we’re investing in heavily. A second area we’re investing in heavily is democratizing data. What we did in terms of democratizing data as a government, historically GPS is a perfect example, where the government decides to democratize that data, and innovation happens in the private sector.
In the same way, when we released over 270,000 data sets on every aspect of government operations, from health care to energy to education, students at RPI took that data and started creating the most innovative applications we could imagine. So government does not have a monopoly on the best ideas. And what we’re trying to do is create platforms for innovation.
On a very short term right now, next thing that I think is going to have a huge impact, particularly in the tech sector that I’m connected with, is location awareness. Location awareness, I mean we have not known where people are until now. The applications that exist, particularly when you drop the barrier to providing those applications.
If you think about the historically famous inventors in America, there is a few of them that we know the names of. Now there are millions of them creating their applications on the iPhone and Android every single day. And so now with that barrier dropped, location awareness being the added sense that now we can add to this set, I think we’re going to see some major changes in industry and economies and our social lives.
Fascinating. Shirley, what does technology look like in the coming years?
The real answer to your question is that we don’t know. If you look at the development of technologies, the ones that Vivek talked about with the data.gov semantic web technologies. But if you look at the marriage of those kinds of technologies and tools with informatics, with an ability to understand social networks, and agents in social networks, there will emerge a whole range of new tools that will have implications in the financial services sector, will have implications with respect to security, including cyber security, and we could go on.
And then there’s the broader and deeper convergence. The convergence of information technologies with materials based technology, such as nanotechnology and the life sciences. If you take what has come out of the mapping of the human genome, and you marry that with the tools of information technology, you have an ability to think about truly personalized drug development.
Those are where I think the new frontiers are. And they also happen to be important, not just because they enlarge markets, because they can make a difference in the human condition. And in the end, that’s what I’m about.
Transformation. We’ll be right back.
The future of technology’s unknowable. That’s what’s so wonderful about it.
Technology’s going to fundamentally change the way the American people interact with their government, our health care system, our education system. And it’s going to do it in a way that’s going to allow us to live better lives.
It’s really about education. And it’s about giving this larger, more internet savvy group of people the tools to personalize and create their own new environments.
I’d like to thank this extraordinary panel for being here tonight and contributing to this provocative and timely conversation on the future of technology. We know how busy you all are. Thank you so much for spending the time, and for offering such valuable insights for our audience.
For more, head to meetingoftheminds.cnbc.com. For “Meeting of the Minds”, I’m Maria Bartiromo. Thanks for joining us. Goodnight.