♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
>>> HI THERE. I'M JIM ZIRIN.
WELCOME BACK TO
"MORE CONVERSATIONS IN THE 
DIGITAL AGE." HAVING SEEN
A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN RIDDLED
WITH VIDEOTAPED EVIDENCE OF 
POSSIBLE SEXUAL MISCONDUCT,
SEARCH WARRENTS COVERING 
UNREAD EMAILS ON A LAPTOP 
COMPUTER, CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
ON PERSONAL SERVERS, AND
RUSSIAN CYBER HACKS SEEKING TO 
MANIPULATE THE ELECTORATE, 
WE ASK WHAT ARE THE COSTS AND
BENEFITS OF A WORLD CONNECTED
FOR BETTER OR WORSE THROUGH
CYBER SPACE. HERE TO HELP US 
PONDER THIS QUESTION IS
AN EXPERT ON THE SUBJECT OF 
CYBER SECURITY. HE IS
ADAM SEGAL. DIRECTOR OF THE 
DIGITAL AND CYBER SPACE POLICY 
PROGRAM AT THE COUNCIL ON 
FOREIGN RELATIONS. ADAM
SEGAL IS THE AUTHOR OF A RED HOT
BOOK "THE HACKED WORLD
ORDER, HOW NATION'S
FIGHT, TRADE, MANEUVER AND 
MANIPULATE IN THE DIGITAL AGE."
>> WHAT IS GOING ON WITH ALL OF 
THE E-MAILS, THE ELECTION 
CAMPAIGN SEEMED TO TAKE A CYBER 
DIMENSION.
>> IT LOOKS TO BE HACKING BY 
RUSSIAN AND MILITARY 
INTELLIGENCE OF THE E-MAILS AND 
SERVERS OF THE DEMOCRATIC
NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
JOHN PODESTA, AN ADVISOR TO 
HILLARY CLINTON, AND SOME 
OTHER DEMOCRATIC ORGANIZATIONS, 
AND THEN THE RELEASE OF THOSE 
E-MAILS IN AN ATTEMPT TO 
INFLUENCE THE ELECTION OR CREATE
CONFUSION AND CHAOS.
>> SO THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
SAYS RUSSIANS ARE RESPONSIBLE.
DOES THAT MEAN THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT OR DOES THAT MEAN 
INDIVIDUAL RUSSIANS? 
>> WE DON'T KNOW, WHEN THE
REPORT CAME OUT, CROWD STRIKE,
WHICH WAS THE CYBER SECURITY 
FIRM THAT FIRST REPORTED THE
ATTACKS, SAID THE
HACKERS ARE FROM THE GRU, 
WHICH IS MILITARY INTELLIGENCE
AND THE FSB, THE FOLLOW UP TO 
THE KGB.
GIVEN THE TECHNIQUES AND METHODS
THEY ARE USING. WHEN THE 
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 
SECURITY AND THE DIRECTOR OF 
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE CAME OUT
AND ATTRIBUTED THE ATTACK TO 
RUSSIA, THEY SAY GIVEN THE TYPES
OF ATTACKS WE THINK THEY HAVE
TO HAVE PERMISSION FROM THE 
HIGHEST LEVEL OF RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT THEY
DIDN'T ATTRIBUTE IT. IT COULD
BE CRIMINAL HACKERS BEING
PAID FROM THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT
OR FREELANCERS.
>> WHY WOULD THE RUSSIAN 
GOVERNMENT WANT TO HACK THE 
E-MAILS OF DEBBIE WASSERMAN 
SHULTZ OR JOHN PODESTA.
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE 
INTENT OF THE HACKER IS.
IN THE PAST, THE RUSSIANS HAVE
USED CYBER ATTACKS IN THE 
COUNTRIES AROUND THEM.
SO IN THE UKRAINIAN ELECTION IN 
2015, THEY SENT TEXTS AND 
E-MAILS TO KNOCK SOME WEBSITES 
OFFLINE. IN THIS CASE,
IT'S NOT CLEAR IF THEY WERE
JUST SPYING ON. THE DEMOCRATIC
CAMPAIGN, THEY WERE CAUGHT, THEY
DECIDED TO DUMP THE MATERIALS, 
OR THEY ALWAYS INTENDED
TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION.
>> POSSIBLE RETALIATING AGAINST 
HILLARY CLINTON?
BECAUSE SHE ACCUSED THEM OF 
TRYING TO RIG THE ELECTION?
>> WE KNOW THEY HAVE A VERY 
BROAD CONCEPTION OF INFORMATION.
AND THE SENSE OF TRYING TO 
INFLUENCE THE DOMESTIC POLITICS 
THROUGH THE INTERNET IS PART OF 
THAT.
THEY THOUGHT WHEN SECRETARY 
CLINTON WAS TALKING ABOUT FREE 
AND OPEN- SHE WAS TRYING TO
SWAY THE
ELECTIONS AGAINST PUTIN.
SO IT COULD BE A RESPONSE TO 
THAT OR IT COULD BE A RESPONSE 
TO THE SANCTIONS THEY'RE PUTTING
ON RUSSIA BECAUSE OF CRIMEA AND 
UKRAINE.
>> IF YOU WANT TO HACK INTO THE 
E-MAIL SERVERS, I WOULD NOT KNOW
WHERE TO BEGIN OR WHERE THEY'RE 
LOCATED.
HOW DID THEY GO ABOUT IT.
>> THEY WENT ON A SPEAR
FISHING CAMPAIGN.
IT IS MADE TO LOOK LIKE SOMEONE 
YOU KNOW, AND WILL HAVE A LINK
OR SOMETHING TO DOWNLOAD THAT
HAS SOMETHING ON IT, MALWARE. 
SO IT'S SENT TO YOU, IT SAYS, 
HI JIM, THIS IS ADAM. HERE IS
AN ARTICLE I THOUGHT YOU WOULD 
BE INTERESTED IN, THE E-MAIL 
ADDRESS IS SPOOFED, IT LOOKS 
LIKE IT CAME FROM ME BUT -- 
>> BUT IF I'M A STRANGER, HOW DO
THEY KNOW IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO
WITH YOU.
>> THEY MAY GO ON THE LINKEDIN 
ACCOUNT AND SEE WE'RE CONNECTED,
OR GO TO YOUR TWITTER PAGE
AND SEE I'M A FOLLOWER.
THEY GO TO THE COUNCIL'S PUBLIC
LIST AND SEE MEMBERS SO THERE'S
LOT'S OF WAYS THEY CAN DO 
INTELLIGENCE AND GATHER THAT 
AND SEEK POSSIBLE CONNECTIONS.
>> THE COUNCIL ITSELF HAS BEEN 
THE OBJECT OF MALWARE ATTACKS.
>> IT HAS.
IT IS OF INTEREST TO THE RUSSIAN
AND CHINESE INTELLIGENCE 
SERVICES.
>> THE DNC E-MAILS, REALLY THEY 
WERE NOT CLASSIFIED IN ANY WAY, 
THEY HACK IN AND THEY GET THEM, 
BUT WHO RELEASES THEMSELVES TO 
THE PUBLIC?
IT'S WIKILEAKS. JULIAN ASSANGE.
HOW DOES THE HACKED INFORMATION 
GET TO JULIAN ASSANGE?
>> ORIGINALLY, THE PERSON WHO 
SAID THEY WOULD DO THE HACKING 
WAS CALLING THEMSELF
GUCCIFER2.0. WHICH IS REFERENCE
TO AN EARLIER HACKER GUCCIFER
THAT HACKED INTO FORMER
PRESIDENT BUSH'S E-MAILS.
HE CREATED DNCLEAKS AND WAS 
PUSHING INFORMATION OUT THERE.
HE SAID HE WAS ROMANIAN BUT 
HE DIDN'T SPEAK ROMANIAN.
THEY FOUND SOME DATA IN THE 
EMAILS THAT SUGGESTED THAT 
IT WAS FROM RUSSIA. HOW THE 
INFORMATION GETS FROM DNC
OR FROM JOHN PODESTA'S EMAIL
TO WIKILEAKS WE DON'T KNOW.
SOME HAVE SUGGESTED IT IS 
DELIVERED BY HAND, A THUMB 
DRIVE, BUT HOW THAT TRANSFER IS 
MADE WE DON'T KNOW. 
>> IS IT CLEAR THERE IS A 
CONNECTION BETWEEN ASSANGE 
AND THE RUSSIANS? 
>> NO CLEAR EVIDENCE OF IT.
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN THE SAME 
POLITICAL OUTCOMES.
ASSANGE SEEMS TO HAVE A
GREAT DEAL OF ANIMOSITY FOR 
CLINTON. IT IS INTERESTING 
THAT HE HAS RELEASED NOTHING 
ON THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 
WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC 
EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW.
>> EIGHT YEARS AGO, THE DIRECTOR
OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE 
PUBLISHED A LIST OF SECURITY 
THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES.
AND CYBER ATTACKS WERE AT THE 
BOTTOM OF THE LIST.
TODAY IT IS AT THE TOP OF THE 
LIST, WHAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN?
>> I THINK ONE IS THAT WE HAVE 
JUST SEEN A HUGE NUMBER OF 
ATTACKS, RIGHT?
IN THAT THE EIGHT YEARS, THE
U.S. HAS SEEN MASSIVE
ESPIONAGE CAMPAIGNS CONDUCTED
BY THE CHINESE AND THE RUSSIANS.
WE SEE THE ATTACK ON SONY.
WE SEE ATTACKS ON U.S. BANKS
THAT SEEM TO HAVE COME FROM 
IRAN. 
>> TARGET STORES, WHO'S 
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ONE? 
>> TARGET WAS PROBABLY CRIMINAL.
MAYBE RUSSIAN CRIMINALS.
BUT JUST A MASSIVE EXPANSION.
AND WE HAVE INCREASING 
VULNERABILITY.
MORE THINGS ARE CONNECTED TO THE
INTERNET.
I THINK THAT IS WHY IT MOVED 
DRAMATICALLY IN THE THREAT 
MATRIX.
>> NOW THE ATTACKS WE HAVE SEEN 
ARE WHAT WOULD APPEAR TO BE IN 
THE NATURE OF ESPIONAGE OR, YOU 
KNOW DISRUPTION OR JUST TO TEASE
US.
BUT NO REAL DEVASTATING
ATTACK TO TAKE DOWN THE GRID, AN
ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE BANKING 
SYSTEM.
AND THEN WHY DIDN'T WE SEE 
ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
>> WE HAVE ONLY SEEN ONE ATTACK 
THAT CAUSED PHYSICAL DAMAGE.
AND THAT WAS THE US/ ISRAEL
DIRECTED ATTACK AGAINST
THE IRANIAN CENTRIFUGUES.
WE HAVE WHAT WE THINK WAS A 
RUSSIAN ATTACK ON THE UKRAINIAN 
POWER GRID THAT TOOK IT DOWN FOR
ABOUT SIX HOURS.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT, EVERYTHING ELSE
IS ESPIONAGE OR DISRUPTION.
IT IS A COMBINATION OF 
RESTRAINTS.
PROBABLY A HANDFUL, U.S., CHINA,
RUSSIA, ISRAEL, GERMANY, U.K.
THEY WILL NOT LAUNCH AN ATTACK 
OUT OF THE BLUE.
THEY WILL NOT DESTROY -- 
>> THE CYBER PEARL HARBOR.
>> CYBER PEARL HARBOR, 
DIGITAL PEARL HARBOR,
CYBER 9/11, SO NO ATTACK
OUT OF THE BLUE, THEY WOULD
USE THOSE ATTACKS IF THEIR 
NATIONAL INTERESTS WERE BEING 
SEVERELY THREATENED.
>> WHAT ABOUT ISIS, AL-QAEDA, OR
TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.
>> WHAT ISIS AND AL QAEDA USE
THE INTERNET AND CYBER SPACE FOR
PROPAGANDA AND RECRUITMENT.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY 
TO LAUNCH AN ATTACK -- 
>> HAVE WE CONSIDERED AT ALL 
A KIND OF LAW OF THE SEA
APPROACH WHERE WE
GET TOGETHER WITH RUSSIA AND
CHINA AND TRY TO ESTABLISH SOME
GUIDELINES AS TO THE
DOS AND DON'TS OF CYBERSPACE.
>> WE HAVE. SO THE UNITED STATES
HAS BASICALLY ARGUED THAT THE 
LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT APPLY 
IN CYBER SPACE SO NEUTRALITY, 
PROPORTIONALTY, DISTINCTION, 
ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT CAME 
OUT OF HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF 
PHYSICAL WARFARE SHOULD APPLY.
CHINA AND RUSSIA HAVE ARGUED
THAT NO, WE NEED NEW TREATIES.
CYBER SPACE IS TOO DIFFERENT TO 
USE THOSE RULES.
WE HAVE WHAT THE RULES OF THE 
ROAD TO BE.
IN 2015, THEY AGREED TO BROAD 
PRINCIPALS ABOUT HOW A STATE
SHOULD BEHAVE IN CYBER SPACE.
>> THEY ARE SPENDING ABOUT FOUR 
TIMES AS MUCH ON CYBER OFFENSES 
AS CYBER DEFENSE.
AREN'T WE A MAJOR PLAYER 
IN CYBER WAR? 
>> CHINA ARGUES THAT IT WAS 
THE U.S. THAT WAS THE FIRST TO 
MILITARIZE CYBER SPACE. WE SET 
UP CYBER COMMAND WHICH IS THE 
DEFENSE DEPARTMENTS UNIT FOR 
CYBER DEFENCE AND OFFENCE. 
WE WERE ALLEGEDLY BEHIND THE 
ATTACK ON THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR
PROGRAM SO WE WERE CERTAINLY
ONE OF THE FIRST TO MOVE INTO 
SPACE. I THINK WHAT THOSE
NUMBERS REFLECT IS THE PROBLEM
OF DEFENSE DOESN'T SEEM TO 
BE WORKING. DEFENSE CLEARLY 
ISN'T WORKING SEEING AS PEOPLE 
KEEP GETTING IN AND SO PEOPLE 
THINK THAT IF DEFENSE DOESN'T 
WORK YOU NEED MORE OFFENSE.
>> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
INTERNATIONAL HACKING, BUT
DOMESTIC HACKING OCCURS TOO.
YOU SEND ME AN E-MAIL.
TO MY G-MAIL ACCOUNT, THE 
GOVERNMENT IS NOT SUPPOSE TO 
INTERCEPT THAT WITHOUT A 
WARRANT. BUT SOMEHOW OR 
ANOTHER THOSE COMMUNICATIONS
GET HACKED AND I THINK THE 
PUBLIC GENERALLY HAS GRAVE
CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY AND
IT IS PRIVATE COMMUNICATION 
BETWEEN THE TWO OF US.
IT MAY BE ACCESSIBLE.
IT COULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO 
OTHERS.
WHAT SHOULD THE STANDARDS BE FOR
SECURITY AND PRIVACY AND
FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT AND EACH OF
THOSE IS A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF
PRIVACY. IF I USE MY WORK EMAIL
I HAVE NO PRIVACY, BASICALLY.
THE WORK HAS THE ABILITY TO LOOK
AT ANY OF THOSE.
IF I'M E-MAILS TO YOU ABROAD, IT
COULD BE CAUGHT UP BECAUSE 
WE USE THE SAME COMMUNICATION 
TECHNIQUES AS 
TERRORISTS, SPIES, AND OTHERS.
I DON'T THINK WE KNOW YET. 
IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY 
WE ARE USED TO HAVING PRIVACY 
FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND 
TRANSPARENCY FOR GOVERNMENT.
BUT BIG DATA, THE DIGITAL AGE, 
FLIPS THAT AND WE SEE A GREAT 
DEAL OF TRANSPARENCY BY THE 
INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE WE'RE
LEAVING SO MUCH CODE AND DATA
AROUND.
AND GOVERNMENTS CAN OPERATE MORE
AND MORE WITH CYBER ATTACKS, 
SPECIAL FORCES, OR DRONES.
SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE 
A DEBATING WITH WE'RE HAVING A 
DEBATE, IN THE QUESTION ABOUT 
THE FBI'S ACCESS TO THE APPLE 
PHONE IN THE TERRORISM 
INVESTIGATION, WE DON'T KNOW 
WHERE THAT BALANCE BETWEEN 
SECURITY AND PRIVACY IS.
>> SAN BERNARDINO, IN THAT 
SITUATION, FBI WANTED ACCESS TO
THAT DATA ON THE PHONE OF A 
TERRORIST, AND IT WAS PASSWORD 
PROTECTED.
THEY SAID IT WOULD TAKE TOO MUCH
TIME FOR THEM TO CRACK INTO THE 
PASSWORD.
SO THAT PRESENTED A DILEMMA.
EVENTUALLY- SO 
THEY BEGAN DISCUSSIONS.
AND IT WAS SETTLED AND THEY GOT 
ACCESS TO THE DATA SOMEHOW.
BUT DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE THE
POWER TO COMPEL APPLE TO 
MANUFACTURE A BACK DOOR SO LAW 
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES CAN GET 
ACCESS TO MY iPHONE.
>> WE DON'T KNOW YET BECAUSE IN 
THAT CASE AS YOU POINTED OUT 
THE GOVERNMENT SHOWED UP WITH 
THE ALL WRITS ACT AND SAID WE 
WANT YOU TO BUILD THIS BACK
DOOR. 
APPLE MADE IS CLEAR THEY WERE
GOING TO FIGHT.
BUT ALSO THE QUESTION WAS IF YOU
BUILD A BACK DOOR INTO A 
PRODUCT, YOU MAKE EVERYONE 
UNSAFE.
AND THAT WAS THE POSITIONS THAT 
WE HAD.
AND THE FBI FOUND A COMPANY THAT
FOUND A VULNERABILITY AND SOLD 
IT TO THE FBI.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT 
VULNERABILITY WAS.
THE QUESTION WAS BASICALLY 
KICKED DOWN THE ROAD?
CAN THEY BUILT A PRODUCT TO GET 
INTO?
WE'RE NOT SURE AS A DEMOCRACY IF
THAT IS WHERE WE WANT IT TO BE.
>> BACK TO THE LATE 19th 
CENTURY, A PARTNER OF SAMUEL 
WARREN, IT WAS CALLED THE RIGHT 
OF PRIVACY, AND THEY SAID IT WAS
A RIGHT OF PRIVACY.
AND MORE THAN THE OPINIONS OF A 
COURT, BUT IN THOSE DAYS, BEFORE
THE DIGITAL AGE, IF I WANTED 
PRIVACY I LOCKED THE DOOR AND I 
DREW THE WINDOW SHADES.
MUST I PRACTICE INTERNET 
ABSTINENCE
TO HAVE ANY
AMOUNT OF PRIVACY LEFT, AND 
ANYONE CAN SEE WHAT IS GOING ON.
>> I THINK WE NEED LEGISLATION 
IN THE COURTS TO MAKE DECISIONS.
I THINK WE SAW THAT IN SOME 
EXTENT, RIGHT, WITH THE QUESTION
ABOUT GPS TRACKING OF CRIMINALS.
SO IN THAT CASE, THE POLICE PUT 
A GPS TRACKER WITHOUT A WARRANT 
ON A SUSPECT.
AND THE COURT RULED THAT NO, 
THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY
BECAUSE NORMALLY TO DO THAT 
TYPE OF SUPERVISION 
THEY WOULD NEED HAVE SOMEONE OUT
THERE 24 HOURS A DAY.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THEM, 
TAIL THEM, AND THAT PUTS BURDEN 
ON THE POLICE FORCE.
WITH GPS TRACKING, YOU CAN JUST 
COLLECT THE DATA FOREVER.
THE EASE OF DATA COLLECTION NOW 
IS SO MUCH MORE BALANCED TOWARDS
THE GOVERNMENT, OR COMPANIES FOR
THAT MATTER.
THAN IT WAS IN OUR TIME.
THAT WE NEED HAVE DISCUSSION 
ABOUT HOW MUCH OF THAT DATA THE 
GOVERNMENT COLLECTS, HOW LONG 
THEY CAN HOLD ON TO IT.
>> TRADITIONALLY THE GOVERNMENT
HAS CREATED OR SOUGHT DATA 
FROM TELEPHONE RECORDS. 
CALLS BACK AND FORTH, 
NOT THE CONTENT OF THE PHONE 
CALL, BUT THE FACT THAT IT WAS 
MADE AND WHO WERE THE TWO 
PEOPLE ON THE CALL AND HOW LONG
IT LASTED. 
THE RECORDS ARE MAINTAINED FOR
BILLING PURPOSES. AND I SUPPOSE 
I KNOW WHEN I USE THE TELEPHONE 
THAT THE PHONE COMPANY IS 
MAKING A RECORD OF THE FACT OF 
THAT CALL.
BUT THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE.
BUT IN THE CASE OF A BACK DOOR 
WITH APPLE, THEY WANT ACCESS TOY
THINGS NOT EVEN OUT THERE YET.
ISN'T THIS A CHANGE FROM WHAT 
OCCURRED IN THE PAST?
>> I THINK IT IS, AND I THINK 
THE PHONE CALLS WERE, AS YOU 
SAID, JUST THE META DATA,
THE TIME AND WHO YOU CALLED.
BUT WITH THE PHONE, NOT ONLY 
GETTING THE PHONE DATA, BUT
THE LOCATION BECAUSE THE GPS 
IS ALWAYS PINGING 
CELL PHONES TO KNOW WHERE YOU 
ARE, POSSIBLY YOUR HEALTH DATA, 
RIGHT?
YOU MAY BE USING A FITNESS AP.
YOUR FRIENDS, FACEBOOK, AND 
EVERYTHING ELSE.
THERE DOES SEEM TO BE A CHANGE 
TO THE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT WE'RE
HOLDING ON OUR PHONES NOW.
>> THERE IS AN ISSUE, I SUPPOSE,
OF INTERNET GOVERNANCE COMING 
OUT OF THE SNOWDEN REVELATIONS.
FROM THE DAWN OF THE INTERNET
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT HAS
BEEN IN CHARGE OF THE INTERNET 
GLOBALLY.
THAT'S BEGINNING TO CHANGE
WITH THE REVELATION THAT THE 
U.S. WAS SPYING. 
THERE HAS BEEN A CALL FOR THE 
BALKANIZATION OF THE INTERNET.
WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT'S
HEADED?
>> I THINK WE ARE MOVING TOWARDS
A FRAGMENTATION.
I THINK IT IS PARTLY DRIVEN BY
THIS REVELATION, RIGHT?
THE U.S. IS CERTAINLY TAKING 
 DATA 
FLOWS, BECAUSE SO MUCH DATA 
FLOWS THROUGH THE U.S. ON 
INTERNET BACKBONES THAT THE U.S.
COULD EASILY TAP INTO IT.
I THINK BECAUSE THERE ARE SO 
MANY GLOBAL PLATFORMS AND 
COMPANY THAT'S ARE AMERICAN, 
THAT IT OFTEN INVOLVES DATA OF 
OTHER COUNTRIES.
THEY WANT ACCESS FOR GENERALLY
LAW ENFORCEMENT REASONS, RIGHT?
IF A BRAZILIAN COMMITS A CRIME 
IN BRAZIL AND PLANS IT WITH HIS 
ACCOMPLIANCES THROUGH 
FACEBOOK, ALL OF THAT DATA IS
OWNED BY FACEBOOK THAT IS 
REGISTERED IN CALIFORNIA.
SO TRYING TO GET THAT DATA.
THAT PROCESS CAN TAKE TEN 
MONTHS, THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE 
TO DO THAT.
SO THEY STORE THE DATA LOCALLY 
AND I THINK WE WILL GO DOWN THAT
ROAD.
>> WE HAVE A NEW ADMINISTRATION 
TAKING OFFICE.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS 
GONE.
WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES FACING 
THE NEW ADMINISTRATION.
>> I THINK IT IS FAIRLY 
REMARKABLE THE AMOUNT OF 
ATTENTION AND POLICIES THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION GOT DONE.
WE HAD MOVEMENT IN CONGRESS.
WE HAD A LOT OF EXECUTIVE 
ORDERS, NEW CHANGES 
INTERNATIONALLY.
SO I THINK THE CHALLENGES ARE 
THE SAME WHICH IS THAT WE 
CLEARLY HAVE NO DETERRENT IN
CYBER SPACE. NATION STATES 
FEEL LIKE THEY CAN ATTACK
QUICKLY AND THE OFFENSE STILL 
HAS THE 
ADVANTAGE OVER THE DEFENSE.
IT'S STILL VERY EASY TO GET IN.
>> SO IS IT A CYBER PRE-EMPTIVE 
STRIKE. DECIDE THAT THEY CHINESE
ARE SUFFICIENTLY MAD AT US 
AND WE JAM THEIR ELECTRICAL 
GRID?
>> IT IS POSSIBLE, EITHER SIDE 
COULD BE USED IN A PRE-EMPTIVE 
WAY.
I THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
JUST IN CYBER SPACE.
I THINK WHOEVER TAKES OFFICE 
WILL HAVE MANY OF THE SAME 
CHALLENGES THEY DID, AND A 
GREATER SENSE OF VULNERABILITY.
I THINK THE VULNERABILITY WILL 
GO UP BECAUSE OF THE INTERNET OF
THINGS. SO WE SAW THAT DVR'S
AND CAMERAS AND OTHER DEVICES
THAT WERE CONNECTED TO THE 
INTERNET WERE HIJACKED AND 
USED TO KNOCK OFF A COMPANY 
THAT WAS SUPPORTING TWITTER
AND FACEBOOK AND NETFLIX AND 
OTHER THINGS SO THE INTERNET OF 
THINGS IS INCREASING OUR 
VULNERABILITY AND SO THERE'S 
GOING TO BE A LOT MORE PRESSURE
ON THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION TO 
MOVE QUICKLY. 
>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE 
HAPPEN? 
>> MOST IMPORTANT, IT IS 
STARTING TO HAPPEN, BUT WILL
HAVE TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT 
ADMINISTRATION IS THEY ARE USING
SO MUCH LEGACY INFORMATION AND 
TECHNOLOGY THEY HAVE TO 
MODERNIZE THAT.
SO MUCH OF IT WAS DISJOINTED SO 
WE COULD HAVE MASSIVE BREECHES.
THAT AGENCY, THERE IS NO WAY 
THEY CAN PREVENT THEMSELVES.
SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE 
BUYING RIGHT TECHNOLOGY, AND 
THEY WE HAVE MORE SECURITY
OFFICES.
>> PRIVATE SECTOR IS HEAVILY 
INVOLVED.
ONE OF THE ISSUES IS HOW DO
TO GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THEIR
JOBS.
YOU CAN MAKE MORE IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR.
SO CAN WE GET LONG TERM, SHORT 
TERM, VOLUNTARY.
I THINK ON THE DOMESTIC SIDE, 
MOVING TOWARDS A WORLD OF 
SOFTWARE LIABILITY.
BUT WITH THE INTERNET OF THINGS,
THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE 
SUSTAINABLE, RIGHT?
IF IT CAUSES DESTRUCTION OR 
DEATH, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET 
SUED.
I THINK WHEN YOU HAVE THOSE IN 
PLACE, THEN THE COMPANIES 
THEMSELVES DO A BETTER JOB.
>> MAYBE YOU CAN JUST TELL US A 
LITTLE MORE ABOUT THE INTERNET 
OF THINGS, A NEW CONCEPT.
>> YEAH, THE INTERNET OF THINGS 
IS BASICALLY ANY DEVICE 
CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.
YOU COULD PROBABLY HAVE 10 OR 20
DEVICES CONNECTED TO THE 
INTERNET.
YOUR OVEN, YOUR GARAGE OPENER, 
YOUR THERMOSTAT, KIDS TOYS, ALL 
CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET.
THEY OFTEN HAVE VERY LITTLE 
SECURITY PUT INTO THEM.
SO IT COULD EASILY TAKE OVER, 
AND WE HAVE SEEN MANY, MANY 
HACKS FOR DATA PURPOSES AND TO 
CREATE OTHER OUTCOMES.
>> SO A QUESTION FOR YOU.
SINCE WE HAVE COME TO THE END OF
THIS FASCINATING INTERVIEW, HAS
HACKING BECOME THE GAME CHANGER
IN THE DIGITAL AGE?
>> I THINK THERE ARE TWO VIEWS 
OF CYBER. THE REVOLUTIONARY
VIEW AND THE EVOLUTIONARY VIEW.
I'M MORE OF AN EVOLUTIONARY GUY.
I THINK WE HAVE SEEN CYBER 
ADOPTED BY THE NATION.
IT IS ONE MORE TOOL, AND WE SEE
WITH THE GREAT POWERS THEY HAVE 
BEEN VERY GOOD AT USING IT, AND 
IT WILL SHAPE OUR LIVES IN THOSE
WAYS.
IT WILL NOT OVERTURN EVERYTHING.
>> ADAM SEGAL, AN EVOLUTIONARY 
GUY. 
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING 
BY, THANK YOU FOR COMING BY.
TUNE IN NEXT WEEK FOR MORE 
CONVERSATIONS OF THE DIGITAL 
AGE.
ALL OF THE BEST AND TAKE CARE.
♪ [THEME MUSIC] ♪
