tv Public Affairs Events CSPAN November 23, 2016 6:00pm-8:01pm EST
for those of you who don't know it, you film it with a camera that has optical cameras all over. kind of like a soccer ball with lenses all over it. you stated together and show it and a headset so you feel at your standing in the middle of the stories. if you're looking on your phone you can move your phone around everywhere. >> lets make clear that people can go to your site and not put on goggles. diving off a cliff with olympic divers. >> it is all on ryot. huffington post.com. we have recently lost -- recently launched capabilities in all editions of the huffington post, creating the largest virtual reality network. i think when you ask about it as
a wave of the future, we could debate that for a wild. what is not debatable is that the way you are able to consume video on your phone or on your computer changed in the last six months, because you are now able to look all around or move your phone. that to us is a significant moment. this video is kind of running the internet, and that means there should be serious investigations into what that means for journalism, for documentary, for news. across all of that, there is an opportunity to create new language, new storytelling techniques. certainly our journalists who are running all over the world shooting in this new tech knowledge he are very proud that they can be a part of the historic moment. you imagine your user, and you imagine that person sitting at a desk on a computer or using a mobile device and smart phone? if the latter, how does that change journalism? >> i think now it is on the
mobile phone. that is where we see most of our views, on youtube 360 or facebook 360. soon more headsets will be available as sony launches a headset. many have launches heading into christmas time. we will see more adoption. what has been interesting is that companies like oculus that was recently acquired by facebook have been surprised at how much video is being consumed. i think people thought this was going to be per video games, and 60% of the content that is watched and a headset is linear videos or 360 videos. step toward a immersive content. right now when you put on the headset, you kind of look around you. and a couple years, you will be able to walk around and environment. for instance, i'm wearing my headset in an empty room and see this panel, i can walk around the panel and be able to see and
eventually interact with the environment. another step forward will be augmented reality, which we think will have major implications, or complete implications on a most everything. >> augmented reality meaning? >> overlays. some of you have seen pokemon go . it is like a consumer version. is a very crude version of augmented reality where it on the a pokemon environment in front of you. what is coming with augmented reality will be major changes in your cell phone, television. if it goes in the trends that people are predicting, some say that the last television you bought will be the last television you ever by because you will be able to impose all of those screens on your windshield, and be able to share with you -- with them.
that technology is moving quickly, and 360 video is just the first step in that. >> some of us could never really figure out whether google was our best friend, or the worst danger we faced. google news labs was invented and launched by you and your colleagues. how do you address that question, and how do you see yourselves helping journalism? >> google news labs, we are about 1.5 years old. google news, which probably many of you are familiar with and have used, is a product that is part of google search, which aggregates news sources, articles from over 70,000 new sources from around the world, and clusters those around major new stories. google news is a product that many of you are familiar with. the news lab was created as a way to engage directly with
journalists and newsrooms on the latest technologies. withhe was talking about 360 and the ark, around data, run all different types of technologies, but the news wrap it -- the news lab is trying to do is that we at google have a lot of expertise in emerging technologies. we are building new products, we have a birds eye view of all these different areas, whether it is ai or the are -- vr. all of these emerging technologies that are changing industries. what we are interested in doing in the news lab is seeing how those tech -- how those can be applied to news and journalism. there are many teams that work with publishers. we are unique in that we go into newsrooms and work directly with journalists and try to help them understand the latest technology at how that can be applied to the journalism they are doing every day. someve us an example of
cool new product that will transform journalism. one -- since we're just talking about 360 -- that is an is following as well as youtube. i just came back from the convention in cleveland and philadelphia. we partnered with six different news organizations to give them access to the latest vr camera that google is producing. as well.access it is called a jump cam. it is 17 go pro cameras connected in a single rig with a special software that takes all andinput from those cameras puts it together and create an actual virtual reality experience. these are experimental. they have literally never been used. ryot is one of the first organizations to have access to this. we at google do not really even know what is possible, because we need the content creators, we need the journalists.
>> all this to say we have two cameras now. our journalists use google translate everywhere and all of the world. i don't know of any guys have used the new google translate out yet, but you can literally speak english into it and it will speak any leg would you program it to. it has programmed the way we travel and is one of our most important tools. we had conversations with taxi drivers and fixers that are full conversations, no longer looking through a guidebook. >> what they might team is focused on is data. of interestingt data about what people are searching for. all of, aggregated, but so we can say that around the election , what questions people have about hillary clinton's policies, or what our people in florida searching for related to immigration. these able to search for
with a product called google trends, which is looking across the billion searches that are happening across the world and make that data available to journalists, who can then incorporated into their stories. >> one of the reasons i love vice is it is the best of old media and the best of new media. it is a very sort of edgy, but still tells stories, and it is storytelling. it is narrative. it is well reported. how you figure out that mission and the partners you are trying to pull together for that? -- vice is a media company that has come of age in the last let's just say decade. it has seen a real explosion and what we have called new media companies. a lot of those new media first.es are technology
and a lot of ways, content ends up being gay to will that they use to figure out the business model. viceis just so not what has ever been or will be. we have been story first. as a result, we approach stories as we think about it. lovely partners that we love and have loved forever, when we are first coming to the platform, had a set of best practices. they said the directly to the camera, make it short, maybe a little funny. ton when we first came youtube, we even tried a little bit of that. it just did not resonate, but it was not true to who we were and not to to the value of our ecosystem. upit is he started putting the library of documentaries that we had made in the six or seven years prior, everything exploded. it really took off and we became one of the fastest-growing channels on youtube. >> you became fast almost
because you were old-fashioned. i remember looking at your refugee story and thinking that was something that don hewitt would've done on 60 minutes had he been 100 years younger. [laughter] >> you know, i think that speaks to the power of the media distribution environment that we have now. it really allowed us to do a few things. one, it allowed us to be able to create really incredible, high quality content on a basis that legacy organizations would not be able to. it allowed us to distribute it instantly to millions of people around the world. vice truly does have a global audience. the fact that they could all have access to those stories made that possible. additionally, just the fact that vice is a company that has been so driven and so self-directed, has been a really incredible
reward in the sense that you have heard that this now patently disproven notion that young people did not care about the news. that has been thoroughly debunked at this point. we're just really happy that we have been able to make a part of that argument. that you guysue came at us and let principle, but in your own way. the key for quality that made vice successful, but also made for loggers that were sitting in their bedroom speaking to the cameras and telling jokes successful was a sense of authenticity. you can't just take what you see on cable news and put it on youtube and expected to be successful. it does not translate. what you guys have done with vice -- and i think having the personalities of people election smith -- -- people like shane smith, there is an authenticity
that i think is one of the reasons it was so successful. >> how is all of this changing what you do, marty? >> it is changing profoundly. we are in a different information era. way this essentially led to a new medium in the same way that radio was different from newspapers, when radio came into existence. when television came into existence, it was different from radio and newspapers. a different way of communicating with your audience. the web came along and what it newspapers do? they put newspaper stories on the web. that did not work very well. themen we said let's put up faster. that didn't work so well either. newreality is we have a media here, and people are connecting with us in a different way. we are developing i think a different way of telling stories. withhat is more authentic,
the voice of the writer or videographer more evident. and where he was all of the tools that are available's to us now -- of available to us now. interactive graphics is another. annotations of original documents. there are a whole social media that we can display. a whole range of things. we use those as part of our storytelling these days. way,e doing that in every every day. and we have shown a lot of growth as a result of that. we have shown year-to-year growth rates of up to 70%. for u.s. traffic, we have essentially the same amount of traffic, the same number of visitors every month to our work as the new york times does. >> however, i will walk into your wonderful news headquarters -- really an amazing newsroom, merging digital as well as a
print newsroom -- but as you walk into that great lobby, there is a metric board that shows how many clicks each story is getting. is there a danger to that? >> we do have a giant metrics board. it tells us how we are performing, and it tells us what the most read stories are. it tells us how many people are going from one story to the next . it is just part of the business these days. feelt they have started to clickbaity. >> we have never had a headline like that, i assure you. you will be searching forever. clickbait is that you have a headline that is
designed to lure somebody and then there is no substance behind that headline. we do have headlines that are written to get people to read the story. that is the definition of a good headline -- it is faithful to what a story is about, but it is written in any way -- in a way that gets someone attention. we do not make apologies for that. we have tools now that allow us to provide multiple presentations on the website and serve multiple presentations to different users. then we see which one is working the best. we do not have humans determine which is working the best. a machine looks at which is capturing the most attention from our users, and very quickly, that is the approach that takes over. we do deploy technology on our behalf. we have asked newsrooms in this country what is happening in this digital environment. they're working 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
they have to have news out instantaneously when it breaks. we are asking people to do video, participate in social media. they have to do a whole range of things that were never asked of them before. people are working incredibly hard. i think they working about as hard as they can. work smarter. working smarter means using technology on our behalf. we do have a very sophisticated engineering department at the post. they have developed a whole set of tools that we can use to amplify our work, and to get more people to read it. what do we want? we want people to read our work. >> the person doesn't best in america to use digital tools is jeff bezos at amazon. what has he brought to the party, what advice has he given you? the first advice that he gave
us was don't be boring. we tried to take that to heart. that is a very profound piece of advice. if you read the washington post today, you can see what that means. >> we try not to be boring. one of the things that is problematic now, or has been on say the-- let's washington post spends six months doing a story, and we invest a lot of money in it, we posted on the web. within five-15 minutes, a lot of websites have grabbed that story , they have taken the information that we have, they have disseminated it all of the web, and in many instances they would get more traffic than we got without spending a dime to do any of the reporting. it is a real problem for news organizations like ours that have invested a lot of money in original reporting. what they're doing is called aggregating.
we now do more aggregating than we did before. we then layer on our original reporting on top of that. that is the only way that we can get to the stories quick enough. if we had to report in every detail every story that was out there, we would be publishing the stories of week from now, when everybody has already read it elsewhere. they infect are doing aggregating as well. everybody is. you have to be careful with that. you have to be sure these are reliable sources of information. the more sensitive the subject, the more reliable that you yourself do that reporting and check every last detail. we have moved more in that direction. areas ofo -- the investment for him have been our newsroom and resources. we have grown by about 150 people in our newsroom since he acquired us.
he has invested in our technology. they have to absolutely be at the forefront of technology. at the very much in control of our technology because people if you want so fast to do some thing different community to be able to do it yourself. based on something marty just said a moment ago -- if you invest a whole lot into reporting, other people will make them bucks off of it by aggregating. the business model was still based on the aggregation. that is the main model for journalism. henry luce who founded the publication i was work for said that a publication that depends only on advertising revenue and not on consumer revenue is not only morally abhorrent, it is also economically self-defeating. i never nuisance he was a
i never knew since he was a protestant son which was worse. is it of torrent and economically self-defeating to continue to depend almost solely on advertising revenue? i think i fall more on the economically self-defeating camps than the morally of camp.t cap --abhorrent i think we know how to do responsibly. is theger challenge economically self-defeating part. the pressure put on journalism by platforms like facebook, even our friends at google, mean that the revenues that we get for advertising online are going down. it is not just a shift from steadier past print revenue to digital revenue.
the amount of revenue you can bring in from individual online is getting less and less. the thing i find heartening about the current moment is that a lot of shots are starting to the masss about aggregation of eyeballs as the primary model for what a digital outlet should do, in part because of the last few years with facebook and access to the kind of data that marty is talking about, it became fairly easy to publish a set of aggregated stuff, plays a lot of bets on the roulette table, grow your overall unique, tell your advertises you have so many visitors coming in every month, sell this concept of 60 million people. with everybody pushing the same lovers online to achieve that same audience size, you end up having a lot of journalism that is not very valuable, audiences that are not in fact real, and i think that is part of what is
causing the depression in revenue that people get. starting tople are think really differently about that. sterling was talking about vice determinethe model to what it is that they do that is distinctive, what their audience values, and to tilt that court that corend to build of users around the world. choice.my investigative same rigor that journalists have strived to practice over years. for us it's late, the way i think -- for us at slate, the way i think about it is how we can tell a story different than what people can see somewhere else. how can we be distinctive, how can we be the place of our audience feel think they have to come to read to feel like they understand what is happening in the world today? >> i would add to that, or back up what marty was talking about.
the moment we are in is this incredibly significant moment that is not just put a newspaper on a phone or on a computer. everyone of us in our pockets has a phone that has access to all of the world cost information. all of the newspapers and the entire world, we could read right now. and it has a camera on it that is mostly a four k camera. not only gain access all the world's information, making distribution democratized, but you can also upload your own onry and publish it on your social media or medium or any of these other platforms. that means you have the opportunity for storytelling to also be democratized. i think the opportunity and also the challenge is that when you are just seeing content on your phone, when you're just reading a news article on your phone, you don't know the difference between if you are just a young person accessing news for the
first time -- there is no way to tell the difference between an article from a blog or the washington post. i think once you dig in and see the quality of journalism, of course you can tell. if you just get it off facebook or some between something and you look at it, used to be able to tell by holding a physical nose -- visible newspaper and saying that it was high quality, pictures were beautiful, it was thick. if you're looking at it on your phone, you don't really have that way to tell. there is opportunity for smaller publishers. you think about with newspapers -- if you're the local newspaper in aspen, you could not compete against the new york times. the new york times could get more newspapers into the local convenience store and ask them, but the aspen paper could never find the papers to bodegas in new york. equalizea chance to that distribution online if you're smart about social media, if you get in floods of people
to push those things. what it means is it is more important than ever that we support great journalism, that the platforms are supporting that great journalism. there is an opportunity for new voices who never had an opportunity to be heard or to be iad can now get out there and think that is an extraordinary thing, especially when you look at the billions of people who are going to be getting online in the next 10 years. >> olivia, let me twist the question a little bit. journalism has never been more distrusted and more disliked in general. people just think journalists are in it for their own agendas, they're doing bad things. it seems to me one cause of that is we are not producing journalism that requires people to pay for it. in other words, if we were disciplined by having to have
customers willing to buy our would then have to produce a product that was more trustworthy. is there anyway way to get consumer revenue in this day and age and produce the type of journalism that people will pay for? or is that me being 20th century? >> i don't know if i'm the best person to speak to that. services aree's free to consumers. our model is very much people come to google for information -- >> let me push on you. google newsletter could if it say that there is a coin purse on every google article and we will let people pay. they not the to google's interest, but if you decided to embed a block chain model or any sort of coin model you wanted, a way to pay for poems are music
that they are accessing, you could change journalism more than anybody else. >> i think this idea of micro-payments is interesting, building in that expectation. we were chatting about how apple did that with music and itunes , or evenhe expectation the idea that something has value and that you pay for it. that was more or less successfully done in music, because it was a frictionless experience to just be able to .ogon to your itunes $.99 is the big deal. i think that model is big experiment and with. >> you're going to let apple beat you to the punch? >> i can't say to the fact -- there has definitely been companies that are trying. there is one out of europe that has had success with micro-payments. not quite $.10, but the $.99.
google is starting to experiment with a subscription model on youtube read, which is a monthly subscription. it is a little different from what you're talking about. you pay for this, it is in either experience. part of it goes to the content creators that are uploading the content to youtube. so far the results are good. we kind of want to this wild west model with the internet was blowing up and all the content was free. now we're sort of moving back into a where is there a balance >>? i think we agree that not everything should be behind a pay wall. there is stuff that takes a lot of work. marty pointed out it takes time and investment that really deserves to sort of be financially supported. think it is a question of what is being sold
fundamentally. i think that in a world where subscribers or people are actually paying to the content providers and they are saying there is some exchange of value, and then there is a more direct accountability. as opposed to an advertising model come it is not the content that is being sold, it is actually the audience that is being sold to the advertiser. vice does not have any direct to consumer product, but if you think about it, what device has been able to do very successfully is license it content to multiple different, -- it's content to multiple different platforms around the world. the growth in mobile devices, the growth in video consumption, the growth in all the different areas in which the media landscape is evolving, once they build the platforms, the question is what will they build the plant's with -- the platforms with?
if you are licensing your content like that, tuc vice as being a brand, or will that distribution channels be the brand? there are several video producers, who are in search of scale, almost four its -- for its own sake, or developing more advertising to sell, almost give their content away for free. the cede a lot of the control of their brand, the way that their brand is prim -- positioned or promoted. vice has never scaled for its own sake. we have been thoughtful about our distribution. before we do any deal with the distributor, those deals are considered in a way that we are thoughtful about, our brand, maintenance of it, and the development of it. marty: it is not true that
people will not pay. there are many people paying for journalism on the web. the wall street journal has long had a pay model. the new york times followed with a pay model. people said, early on, the pundits said it was a crazy idea. it turned out not to be. they have about 1.4 million subscribers. espn --ain services on walter: 10 articles per month? marty: ours was 5. we are a latecomer to the pay model and we have catching up to do but we are showing good late growth. we are happy with the progress we have made. we are not at the new york times level. i will not tell you the level we are at, we are not permitted to say so, but i think we're making good progress. one of the things that jeff did
after he acquired us was to completely change the strategy for the washington post. we had become a news organization described as being for and about washington. with the recognition that we are and washington, we will cover government and politics and things like that. jeff said he did not think that was a model that would work, that we had an opportunity and an imperative to become a national and international news organization. we happen to have a brand that was known around the country, the people may not -- the knew of the washington post because of watergate, but they may not have experienced the washington post. run the world people . when people talk about -- around the world, people talk about it. when people talk about the united states -- walter: let me push back on your subscription model, which is great. i subscribe to the three that you mentioned. the new york times, the wall
street journal. kathy subscribes to the washington post and the use person action. i think that is legal. marty: it is legal. you may. walter: there are many times, maybe there is a good article in the houston chronicle. i don't want to subscribe -- or the f.t. does this to me. why not go to a model that we used to have? marty: there are models that are developing. this is not settled business. there are new models emerging. you might be able to acquire a subscription to a bundle. it could be a large bundle. it could give you access to hundreds of news organizations and you would pay a fee and the news organizations would be compensated based on whatever metrics apply. it could be the number of people reading, the amount of time that they spend.
it could be other metrics for engagement. they would be compensated based on that. those things are in the works. people are contemplating that kind of approach. we don't know what the business model for media is going to be. we are all experimenting with new things and new ways. we are trying a lot of things. nobody can say today -- i don't think there is anyone who can say, "this is what the future of media will be. this is the model that is going to exist." there are going to be a wide variety of models depending on the kind of media institution you are. at any point, or someone comes up with a clearly sustainable economic model, the rest of us will copy that right away, and that has not happened yet. walter: let me open it up. many questions. i should have started earlier. you and then you. we will go in that order.
question for sterling. how do you respond to some of the critics? i called and the old boy networks, the cnn's, the cnbc's, who are critical or skeptical of the new age of media? is it because they are threatened or worried about revenue? they are critical but the new age of media. is notg: i think that necessarily evenly applied across everybody that may work for one of those companies. there may be those within those companies who have something to say. , fromis a universe where a revenue standpoint, dollars are finite. if you think about the fact that $.85 of every new dollar interdigital is going to google
digital is going into google or facebook. every independent media company is chasing that remaining $.15. attention is finite. as attention is shifting from tv to digital, desktop to mobile, and from publishers to platforms. it is an intense environment and there are a lot of opinions. our job is to make sure that we keep our head down and focus on what we do best. julia: can i say that the amount of scorn for journalism is way down than it was a few years ago. people are recognizing the brand-new shops, shops that have been around for decades,
everybody is trying stuff. you see a quill work that you want to copy at all caps of shops everyday. you can see a failed experiment but you admire the idea behind it. you see bad ideas, and say something isn't going right. the sense that all of us feel the responsibility to experiment with how to do journalism on the web and make it economically sustainable because more likely to admire and root for each other than to sneer at newcomers. marty: cnn, as you mentioned -- i have no interest in cnn one cnn is aother -- powerhouse on the internet. they are a huge factor. they have a good site, a huge a lot of traffic. they just built up a large political unit. they are doing very good work. i don't think that they disdain the internet. they are a major participator in the internet these days. back.: i will work my way
we will try to get people in. >> this question may start with a piece of data that is dated, but i was told that the print media used to have to write to a seventh or eighth grader to be communicative. in other words, the audience's level of competition required a certain allocation of what it was that you could say, that could be interpreted. that may not be true anymore. marty: i have been in this business for 40 years. i have never been told to do that. it is evident from the stories that is not the case. there are many words i have to look up from time to time. i wish i did not have to. [laughter] that is really not the case. i certainly think we should write in a way that people understand, that large numbers of people understand, and not write as if we are writing a paper for a postgraduate thesis.
nobody -- i am not aware of any requirement to write at a seventh or eighth grade level. >> that wasn't the question. was trying to establish a precedent. the print media, it seems to me in the way of communicating, is quite different than the new dimensions we are seeing on this stage. i'm wondering, if you think about the person receiving the information, whether it be a child, adolescent, or adult, are we going to be communicating in such a different way, in the relationship between the way they are taught, learn, or think, that this will change everything in relationship to more traditional print media? marty: yes. as i suggested, this is a different medium. it requires a different idiom and a different way of communicating. people are absorbing information in a completely different way
than people of my generation and your generation. that is certainly true. it is more visual, which is why all of these folks have been able to create a growing business. it uses these tools, interactive graphics, documents, social media, and these other things which are not characteristic of the print media. organizations like ours which have a legacy print business, when we are on the web, we have to be like the web. we cannot just be rent. -- we cannot just be print. >> i am wondering, with respect to the graduate schools of journalism, how much of the new media is being generated there, these of the those -- vis a vis, those of you who are actually practicing it? back anddo you work
forth with those schools to further refine the media that they might be generating and you might be generating? olivia: at google, my team, the new slab, has a big folk -- the news lab, we have a big focus on helping to develop curriculum around the latest technologies. journalism students are the future of the industry and are often times at the cutting edge of the new tools. we mentioned snapchat. some of these newer platforms that even i am not fluent in, a lot of times journalism students are the ones to finding what t -- defining what these future trends will be. walter: i will add one plug. when this is over, i want you to go see kerry, sitting there,
because that colorado college is doing a whole school of new media. it is not supposed to just be journalistic elite, but whether it is marketing, advertising, for anything else, it is something that community colleges should be doing. scale, or the global nature of news, and the importance of global issues, how do you reveal -- view the role of the foreign correspondent in the foreign desk. in my view, may have been brutally cut back. how do you view the responsibility of getting people what they need to know versus what they want to know? walter: i will let sterling take that one because i's has more foreign correspondents. sterling: with advice has grown is we have established local offices who are completely self-sufficient. they are so endemic to their own
communities that often, only scaled globalwe awareness of the company. a lot ofthat point, people thought that vice was originally from each country. that came from smart hiring, from finding great people and 11 them to develop the -- and allowing them to develop the business without giving them a mcdonald's franchise book and saying, follow these rules. walter: do you want to talk about ariana's plan for world emanation? [laughter] what she did that so well was to create a blogging network whereby people can publish their own stories. we are working on now, this is a larger discussion within journalism, what we have in working on is empowering
journalists, activists, film makers all over the world with cell phones to shoot video on, and now 360 cameras. the tools that people have access to now is making it capable, whereby people can capture incredible footage that would have taken a camera crew and wolf blitzer to show up and tell that story in the past. marty: as far as the post is concerned, we have just added to our foreign staff. we added three additional people including two who are correspondence overseas. one is based in brussels, and the other is going to be based in istanbul, if he is accredited. they are there to cover conflicts and things like that. we have 20 four and correspondence overseas and we are very committed to it and we think it is critical that we be
eyewitnesses to the events around the world which have an enormous impact on us. in addition to that we have created the washington post talent network which is a network of freelancers. many of them are journalists who have retired, some are journalists who were fired, but only for downsizing reasons, people who are underemployed. things like that. that is around the country and around the world. also doing video. we have over 200,000 people in that network now. they have all been vetted by our editors. they are available and are often deployed to do work for us. we have a network of people overseas. when there was the terror attack in nice, we had somebody who was an hour from nice to get there right away, a very good journalist to get there right away and start reporting that. our correspondent in paris was able to get their later. walter: yes, here and then --
>> thank you. my question is a national security question. don't be surprised. all of you know what people are they areor, where coming from and what they are asking. most inquiries are just benign inquiries, but we occasionally have people looking for bad information. how do you deal with the government agencies, the three letter agencies, who want to know where people are, what they are coming for, and what they are looking for? marty: i have never experienced that. there are not that many people who ask us for sensitive information, and secondly, i have not had a three letter agency or an agency with more letters ask us to provide that information. walter: has anybody ever felt the need?
google does? olivia: not trying to dodge it. i cannot speak to that. it is not my area. somebody could answer that question but it is not me. sterling: i just retired from the government and i was in an environment where a lot of people were looking for information from our websites and the three letter agencies wanted to know that information and we would tell them, unless it was a critical issue like someone searching for mustard gas information, or the national stockpiles, we said you have to subpoena us. walter: standing in the back there. >> this question is for everybody but "the washington post," because they are easiest. i am impressed with the two lectures we have had, you guys here and one on podcasts for. here is a bunch of new people in the world with new ways to
communicate. it is easy to value "the washington post." you look at how many people they have at the end of the year and who they consider readers. it is easy. at the end of the year, slate has succumbed to the end of the year and say to themselves, what have we -- and -- has two come to the end of the year and say to themselves, what have we accomplished? how do we make judgments to our success and business model? all of you must have that question, i would be interested to know how you respond. olivia: not going to speak to profitability, but i don't think that your assumptions are correct. we are trying to be a sustainable business. --are not trying to rake in the primary purpose of slate is not to make money, but it is important to me that we find a
model that allows us to sustainably make enough money to do the work that we do covering the world. these new styles and models of journalism, podcasting, and the other tools --they are not just experiments in how to talk to young people, and the ages of those who consume these forms varies a lot, but there are ways to solve those problems. podcasting is a good example. we started a podcasting company last year. it is a very satisfying editorial experience. for the people who like it, it is an on-demand medium. the story i always say is i listen to podcasts in the shower. i put my iphone in the ziploc bag. it is a good hack. now if i take a shower without a podcasts, or without i am bereft.
i don't listen to the whole thing, you take it to the sink and brush your teeth. the thing that a striking me is that you have this relationship with the hosts who have this informal demeanor. you get to trust them. you put the media experience into a chunk of time when there was not typically a media experience. some people are talking about mobile, but if you start walking or going somewhere, you lose the signal and have to cease the experience. but podcasting because it is just in your ears, you can multitask. that means there is a new set of attention that can be monetized and we are having good luck selling ads against our podcast. walter: the woman there, and then i promise to go to the back. the two of you. >> thank you. thank you for being here. it is very interesting. in this new media world, how do
you have the time and finances to fact check as old-school media would. marty: nobody seems to be rushing to answer that question. interesting. why would i step in? walter: is it as well fact checked as it was? marty: i think that we have real ly high quality reporters. they know that before they post something, they are supposed to make sure that it is right. there are greater risks today. there is the question about it. largely because of the demand for speed. why do we put up things so quickly? if we don't, somebody else will. they will get the audience, and we want. speed is measured in milliseconds. we have to put out an alert immediately that something has happened.
people expect that now. if they are not there, they go somewhere else for the source. they go to cnn, "the new york times," or somewhere else. walter: the silver lining is that you can correct it more quickly. marty: we can but that is not the ideal thing. a couple of websites have recently announced the death of someone. it is good not to have a scoop that you have to correct along those lines. there are greater risks. i worry about that all the time. the other risk that we have is the available resources within the newsroom, particularly for copy. editors. in the past, you would write a story, it would go to the copy desk. in a methodical way, they would go through it and ask a lot of questions. they might call the reporter at home, or the reporter would be there and they would go through it. they would spend time looking up
the spelling and the various facts. they would go to actual books at the time, we used to use them. now, we have to post very quickly. i think that the error rate tends to be higher, but i'm not -- i worry abou tht at -- about that a lot. the reporters are doing a good job of checking things, but i worry about the risks we are undertaking every single day. it is a hugely competitive environment. walter: in the yellow. >> hello, this is for mr. baron. even though i am young and possibly an anomaly for my generation, i enjoy getting a print copy of the newspaper everyday, even on my way to school or at school. makingyou find your way the print paper with the
overhead pressure of internet paper and internet news? how do you keep the tried and true business running? marty: first of all, thank you for reading the print newspaper. [applause] developed to ais higher state and we can take a sample and make more of you. [laughter] that is great. first of all, not just for reading the newspaper, but for being so heavily engaged with the news. we still have a large readership of the print newspaper. while that circulation is to climbing as it is for just about every newspaper in the united states, those are very loyal readers. they are willing to pay good money for that is paper and they wanted physical newspaper. they will even tolerate price increases in recognition that we need their money to do that.
it is very expensive to deliver a printed product to their home in the morning. we make sure that the printed newspaper has the highest quality possible. we do not give it short shrift by any means. we are called a legacy news organization, and we have this legacy of printed product. there is still a deep reservoir of affection for the printed product within the washington post. maybe too much. our risk is not that we have took a little affection, our risk is that we may have too much affection for the printed product. we make every effort to assure that the printed product is high quality. we hopeyal readers, they continue to remain loyal readers. walter: way in the back. >> my question is related to
thought tonew media, be a factor in the intense partisanship and division in society. people find media to agree with their position and it only makes them more convinced. what do you see as the responsibility, or what are you doing in terms of thinking about promoting civil conversations in society? walter: a very good question, sir. nobody is leaning forward to answer it. [laughter] ahead.o bryn: we started -- my background is as a humanitarian. i was in haiti, and i lived there for three years after the earthquake. behind ryot in my tent, the children's hospital i was volunteering at.
i built it because i was frustrated at news not being actionable. when we built ryot, it was a news website so every story had an action, so if you read something you could do something about it. at the time it was controversial. people would say, is not right to tell people what they should do after reading an article. ryoteaders were coming to because they did not want to be depressed by what was happening in the world, and instead they wanted an opportunity to partake in the world. if they were able to integrate social media and cell phones, they wanted that from the news too. we have always tried to be on the right side of history and compassionate in supporting peace and understanding, respect and justice and all of those things. i don't think we have tried to paint both sides of the picture. we didn't want to isolate anybody.
we are a little shop, so we want to make sure it is not what our beliefs are. walter: iswe are a little techny vulcanizing the media in such a way that we have become more polar rest? marty: for sur -- polarized? marty: for sure. it is a huge problem. that represented appear there are a lot of ways for people to get information. we have responsible players up here from the media field. people are gravitating toward sites and cable outlets that affirm their pre-existing point of view. that is an issue, but there is an even deeper issue. there are internet sites that are propagating information, so-called information, that is
absolutely false. these are absolute fabrications. you have a large number of people in the country who believe that the president was not born in the united states, that he was born in kenya. a large portion of the population who believes that he is muslim, when he is christian. in large portion of the population that now believe muslims cheering the collapse of the world trade center tower, when there is no evidence that actually occurred. there is a guy who runs an internet site out of austin called infowars.com, and also has a prominent radio show, who contends that many of these mass killings we have seen, too many, choreographed by the administration to increase support for gun control and gun confiscation. it is not a small portion of the population that believes this,
it is a large portion of the population that believes these various conspiracy theories. it is corrosive to our democracy. senator daniel patrick moynihan, the late senator, used to say, no people believe they are entitled to their own facts and they have their own set of facts. have a situation where we do not just argue about the analysis of the situation or the prescription for solving the problem. we disagree on the core facts. civil society? a we face in our industry. there is no greater challenge are what many people
calling a virtual reality. [applause] i completely agree it is the most pressing problem. there are studies that show that does not have to do with the right effects. the opposite of the version of the truth that you believe. we have seen this particularly reporting. a crazy posting my friend posted about zika and genetically modified mosquitoes.
the temptation of the media is to go into science bully mode. trafficget a lot of going, rock, rock, big science ra, big science. the question of what the right journalistic posture is, if it is not just reporting the truth -- - walter: who has a great last question? big, broad, and wonderful. >> how can you ensure you are not politically biased one way or another, like some? walter: i am going to let every one of the panelists talk about it. how do you make sure you are not politically biased, or is it ok to say i am coming at it from a
viewpoint? i think the most important at any media institution is about transparency and disclosure. toh that, we are able and confidenton ground from which the conversation can take place. dramatic rise a of first-person reporting, storytelling of any kind. whether it be someone behind a set of keys or someone holding a song in the middle of a protest. i do believe the collective desire for information around that, and first-person perspective, is only increasing. as marty mentioned, that
activeneously allows for disinformation to spread. the job of some media institutions, whether they be ly funded or otherwise, is very broad. forimportant thing is institutions to do the best they can establishing trust with their audience. from google's perspective, we are not a news organization. which is not to similar from many news organizations. because many people around the world come to google for information, we absolutely cannot have any type of bias whatsoever. what you see on google search, google news, is algorithmically
generated and is meant to show whatever news articles. >> can algorithms have biases? a human beinge is creating those of the rhythms. that is something that has been a healthy topic of discussion and a valid one. every algorithm is a series of choices. there are literally hundreds of choices. it is not a simple matter by any means. what goesven describe into it. it is important when you come to are able to get information across many different perspectives, different news organizations with different political first person perspective, if you go on
youtube. we are meant to be a portal for the world information. us is therency for most important part. people who come and read articles or watch films know we have a political bias. we are not the associated press to read we are not reuters. we don't want to be. as long as we are transparent about it, people know what we are coming to get, and our partners are very open with their political beliefs. we are proud of that. >> i think there is a difference between being biased and the way you practiced journalism. and having opinions and viewpoints. this late position has always been, we strive to be fair. as fair as we possibly can. but that we differently come from a perspective. where our evident supreme court correspondent weighs in on what justices say.
she writes about what she believes. it is no surprise to people when she critiques alito. habit ofeen in the publishing a list of who is voting for whom before election day on the theory we should know -- you should know where we are coming from. everdon't think we will escape allegations we suffer from political bias because that is the nature of the environment at the moment. we do have layers of editing where people act as eternal checks on others. if they detect a bias, we endeavored to guide against it. that is part of our code of ethics. our mission, we need to be honest, honorable, and fair. involves being involved
to what people are saying. listening to them. giving them a hearing. a fair hearing. ultimately, we do the reporting. we have an obligation to tell people in a straightforward way when we have found. with the evidence shows. not toproceed -- pussyfoot about it. show them what the evidence straight.tell them when we talk about fairness, my view is, let's be fair to the public, too. them in alling straightforward way what the results of our reporting were. what we found. believe that is central to our mission. shy fromhink we should that. i don't think we should shy from it because someone as a result may accuse us of little biased.
thank you all very much. [applause] those who want to know more about colorado mountain college, you can even walk with us and come to a fundraiser. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] pardoned theobama annual thanksgiving turkey for the eighth and final time. here is the rose garden ceremony. it is about 10 minutes.
>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] president obama: thank you so much, everybody. please have a seat. haveenerations, presidents faithfully executed two rate american traditions. issuing a proclamation that sets a thursday in november for us to express gratitude. pardons that reflect our believes in second chances. this week, we do both. holidayving is a family as much as a national one. for the past seven years, i have established another tradition.
embarrassing my daughters with bad jokes about turkeys. this year, they had a scheduling conflict. actually, they just couldn't take my jokes anymore. they were fed up. fortunately, i have by my side here today two of my nephews, austin and aaron russell it's obinson, who unlike my daughters have not been turned cynical by washington. they still appreciate bad puns. sasha are thankful this is my final turkey pardon. what i haven't told them is we are going to do this every year from now on. no cameras, just us, every year.
no way i am cutting this habit, cold turkey. [applause] president obama: that was pretty funny. chance tong is a gather with loved ones, reflect on our many blessings, and after a long campaign season, finally turn our attention from polls to poultry. looking to be honored by two of the lucky ones. ot.er and tau tater is here in a backup role just in case tot can't fulfill his duties. he is kind of like the vice turkey. we are working on getting him a pair of aviator glasses. privilege, let's just say it is my job, to grant them clemency this afternoon.
i want to take a moment to recognize the brave turkeys who were not so lucky. ride theot get to gravy train to freedom. who met their fate with courage and second face -- sacrifice and proved they were not chicken. [laughter] president obama: it is not that bad, now. come on. we have a lot to be thankful for this think giving. six great years of job creation. low unemployment. the housing market is healing. the stock market has nearly tripled. our high school graduation rate is at an all-time high. an uninsured rate is at all-time low. --nks to [applause]
president obama: that is worth gobbling about. families are finally complete now that marriage equality is the law of the land. there are many families of service members who had md chairs in recent years but can celebrate with our brave troops and veterans who we welcomed home. thanksgiving is also a reminder of the source of our national strength. out of many, we are and one can read we are bound not by one race or religion but by creed.ce to a concremmon while building a diverse society has never been easy, it has never been more important. we are people that look out for one another. we keep moving forward, defined by values and ideals. that have been a light to all humanity.
we have to teach ourselves and each other because we all have families we love. we all have hopes for their better future. that sometimesf and thinks giving is a good time to remember that you have more in common than divides us. the holidays are also a time when it is important to reach out to those who need a helping hand. i believe we are judged by how we care for the war and vulnerable. the immigrant, the refugee, everybody who is trying to get a second chance. in order to truly live up to those ideals, we have to continually fight discrimination in all its forms and show the america is a generous and giving country. we should also make sure everyone has something to eat on thanksgiving. of course except the turkeys because they are already stuffed. today, [laughter]
president obama: later today, the obama family participate in our traditional thanksgiving service project. when somebody at their to -- your table says you have been hogging all the side dishes, i hope you respond with, yes we cran. i know there are some bad ones in here. ot leaving any room for leftovers with how my doing, good? let me just say one last thing before i spare these turkeys' l ives. i want to express my sincere gratitude in the american people for the trust you have placed in me over the past eight years. the kindness you have shown my family. on behalf of michelle and my
mother-in-law, or girls, we want to thank you so much. and now, from the rose garden, tot will go to their new home at virginia tech which is admittedly a bit hokey. they will get to live out their natural lives. a new facility called gobblers arrest where students and veterinarians will care for them. let's get on with the pardoning. everyone knows thanksgiving traffic can put people in a foul mood. happy thanksgiving, everybody. let's go pardon these turkeys. ok. all right. tot?is tater or
this is taught. i should stand on the side so everybody can see it. you from theon thanksgiving table. we hope you have a wonderful time and gobblers rest. you want to touch him? you want to do that? what you think? that was good. what do you think? you are try it? -- want to try it? note? go.e you all right. congratulations. [applause]
some, it looks more like what a general contractor has his mind than the architect. >> sunday night, author edward ofson talks about the role george washington in unifying the country in his new book. >> with they wanted to do was recruit washington as part of the coup d'etat. had already talked about washington, this democracy stuff is never going to work. ourare going to have to be king. washington was a true republican. he believed in republican government. >> sunday night on "q&a." hasollow the transition donald trump becomes the 45th president of the united states and republicans contain -- remain in control of the house and senate. we will take you to keep events. watch live on c-span. watch on-demand or listen on
our radio app. information security and hacking experts discuss cyber security threats at the inaugural summit. one.ding the ceo of hacker and the information security manager from fiat chrysler. this is about 40 minutes. this is really an exciting time for industry, the cyber security industry. also, the auto industry. bringing this together and having the inaugural summit is timely. the discussion is securing the car. some of you are probably thinking, what does that mean? that is what we are here to tell
you about today. crowdsourcing of security vulnerabilities. a number of other previous panels have discussed this. we are going to dive into some details. i would like to start off by giving each panelist a two-minute opening comments. talking about their role and what they are doing. let's start over to my right. ellis.s -- casey casey: it is a pleasure to be here. it is amazing to see such a turnout. we are seeing this conversation of all at an incredible pace so it is good to have you in the room. notackground, i'm clearly from america, i am australian. in 2012. of craft it was a combination of two
things. the realization there is an incredible group of good guys that think like a bad guys and girls. already wanting to help. what we are looking at his two groups of people who need to have a conversation but are historically terrible at getting along. there is a need to adjust that and improve that. it, i haveide of been in the security industry for my entire career. looking at basically the deficit and how we are discovering vulnerabilities and creating feedback loops, to firstly remove the stuff already there. and then get better at avoiding it next time around. what we are doing, we have automation. we try to fill that gap. there are unfilled cyber
security jobs. you have one person being asked to compete, to find a vulnerability first. when bug craft started, it was feedback from a bunch of different organizations that i work with that were more traditional. saying, this makes sense. levels a logical way to the playing field. it is a pleasure to be here today. he is the senior manager of security architecture. titus: i have the least interesting accent on the stage, i just learned. to tell you more about my role, organization.t.
what we are doing as far as the security program is, making sure we are a cross functional multidisciplined. a team that are consulting, helping the vehicle side. understanding the threats we see e and howt. sid those can be applicable to the vehicle. one idea was the idea of the bug bounty. we see it on the technical side. we think it would be applicable for an automotive company. we are excited i.t. got to be part of that. that we have a seat at the table. our input is valued. dan: to my right is martin. martin: we are in this together. hacker one is the number one platform for bug bounty programs
and coordinated this closer. 500 companies. 60,000 hackers around the world ready to hack you for your benefit. when you know your vulnerability, you can fix it. result, the-- companies are the most secure in the industry. we are working with car mapping service companies. general motors. uber. hand-picked to run the heck the pentagon program for the secretary of defense announced a program where hackers were invited to hack the pentagon. in just a few weeks, we had 1400 hackers who discovered 138 severe vulnerabilities. they had paid previously $5 million over three years to find 10 vulnerability. paid $150,000,t,
and found 38. report came within 30 minutes of opening the program. that is how fast the 15-year-old kids hack. have an accent, i am from finland. i have been in california for the past 13 years, mostly in open source and infrastructure and now in security. dan: can you describe for us, how does the bug bounty program work? marten: a bug bounty program is liking either could watch. you are traveling and ask your neighbors to take a look at your house. or how well you build your house, no matter what alarms and locks, you can't protected against everything so u.s. the world around you to help you. the bug bounty program, coordinators disclosure, does exactly that. at -- youorld to look
ask the world to look at your software system. you say, look and report, don't do harm. these people think bad but they act good. you invite them to come in. when they have reported something useful, you reward that bounty results as $100. little we found a bug that was so severe, the company decided to pay so much back to the hacker. the result is the hacker is more committed and will look for more. you will get more and more vulnerabilities found. it is actually good for you. it is as good as going to the doctor and doing checkups you don't really like to do. much better to know your weaknesses than not to know. i would like to add and
say, it is not always hackers. we are talking about vehicles. people have been tuning give holes, trying to get as much performance as possible. when you made the vehicles connected, you wanted people to figure out, what can i do with the mobile app and website? they are finding, as they are trying to get additional functionality, they are finding vulnerabilities. i know some people had already been reaching out to us and saying, i saw something. after a few of those discussions, we said, we need to have a coordinated program to make sure we are communicating with them. do research,ing to this is how you do it safely. this is how we want to reward you for that research. doing this chrysler now? thes: it is an evolution of
program. we have already been working with them. there are a lot of passionate people, people who like to hack, test and break things. they do it because they love it. they want to get rick vision for what they have done. -- a recognition for what they have done. we said, let's go forward. while it is unusual for an it shouldn'tmpany, be. we should all be doing this. we should have a way to find things and report them to us so we can address those risks. make sure those are considered in our designs. a couple ofeen articles recently since the announcement $1500 was the headline, may not be enough. criticism, positive response. how would you respond if somebody said, $1500 will not be motivating enough? would say it is a
motivator. i understand the comments and criticism. we have to start somewhere and that is where we are working with our friends. giving us an idea of where we should start. we may of all. evolve. we will revisit it. casey: the way these programs work, one of the mistakes that happened on early on, they went out with the number that was interesting to the press more than a commitment we were willing to uphold to the community. what we have seen, we have been running as tight as mentioned, programs for technology programs. a lot of organizations in more traditional verticals. including a number of automotive manufacturers. the idea is, start at a level
that is saying. -- sane. we are putting a lot of work into figuring out what this is. i think this industry is just getting started. we are at it went where we can start to collect data. ned say, what is a sa starting point? , i responded to some of those comments, is more about, it is not about putting out this flashy number that is never going to be upheld. it is about aligning expectations between the organizations starting this conversation and the people who are going to participate. doing it in a way that can be upheld. what we see with these programs is, you start at a particular point. you reach a stage where the velocity of submissions drops below certain level.
we generally go and say, congratulations. you have graduated from the level of security that you are going to get feedback on at this level. it is time to think about upping your game. dan: when you say there are other motivations besides money? we had last evening, for a young hacker in college, a computer science major, they can get that on their resume. definitely. the initial motivation, the preeminent one, hackers are going to hack. we have heard that before. these are people who are fascinated and compelled to understand the true nature of how things work. try to be able to manipulate them to do things maybe they should not or are not designed to do in the first place. there is that intellectual curiosity, the preeminent
feature. beyond that, we are seeing a lot of people get employed. by the reputation they build in bug programs. it is purely meritocratic. it is not, where did they go to school? this person had this company. that is proof they are skilled in the real world. cash is king. normalize, that is going to be the steady and consistent motivation. the others still exist. about autok security. there are names we know. this allows us to identify those people. seeing the future, we do a closed belting program. these are the researchers we went to work with because they have a history of finding things. coordinatedefits of disclosure programs are vast.
thisard a couple of them morning. why are some companies or vendors still resisting? what are some reasons why companies are not adopting this? marten: the must not care about security. the fact is, i have tried to provoke you. it has been proven not just the detectat the only way to vulnerabilities in live software. when human beings create problems, only human beings can find them and not the same human beings. we have seen this effect in open source software. remember, the database people said, i cannot use it, it is open and dangerous. companies decided against it
because they thought it was a cancer and a risk. today, if you do not run an open source software, you are doomed. there is a similar principle with software. are taking over security. we will look back and say, how could he have had a time when we did not do this? it is a question of how fast minds will change. i see evidence of this changing much faster. here we have the secretary of defense launching a bug bounty program for the department of defense. they are working with nuclear using thet they are help of 15-year-old kids. it is a shift. you must have the courage to face yourself and say, homey about my vulnerabilities. in return, i will share my experience with all of you. that takes some confidence.
not every company has that. >> if i can add to that. completely agree. are theothers i believe mix, we talked about good guys that think like bad guys. the types ofhink people that can do these types of things to a computer are bad guys. that is the perception. that is what we have to overcome. not truety is it is but it is more interesting to talk about crime then good things. the other component is the operational overhead, dealing with the community trying to give you input. they are at the table, they are very effective. it has efficiency issues. a lot of the considerations people have before they launch these programs, sometimes that
can be a blocker. that is a big part of what we have tried to make easy. ridiculous for traditional verticals. for traditional verticals. dan: we are getting great audience questions. i want to go over to titus. what else is being done? automakers doing to change the way they manufacture vehicles? what else in addition to the bug bounty? titus: considering security at the design phase including all the other experts. understanding these are a connected system. we segment as much as we can. we engineer as best we can. the threats are evolving. we have to make sure we can
respond very quickly. some great getting questions from the audience. i will jump to one of these really quick. researchers offended by the word responsible versus coordinated? people may not understand the difference. it is a term that gets a moral wording attached. main reason. the term responsible has been abused. idea of thiss, the conversation has been happening for the last 15 years. thing that isnew happening. it is just picking up a lot of steam. that wasn't always the case. that has been basically thrown
at the researcher community. not all of them are justified. there are cases where there is the element of, you are coming -- getting someone calling you ugly. i don't like that, you're being irresponsible. that is part of the president. -- precedent. like that term because the responsibility is not just on the hacker side. the thing that is becoming more of a feature, companies becoming that sense of their responsibility to hold up their end of the bargain. it is an age-old debate. orwe use this word coordinated disclosure which is technically accurate but people
to understand what it means? there is a rich history. marten: i would go back to that question and put blame to those who have it in security for 15 years. you have created the world's most complicated terminology. we should come up with easier words and make this an everyday part of what everybody is doing. just like in my view, the automotive industry did with safety. embedded it without thinking much noise about it. that is what we need to learn. it needs to start from the beginning of the lifecycle and we must give it simple, understandable names. casey: i'd like to apologize war the language. -- for the language. dan: we have five questions in
the nature of white hat, black cat. a number of different renditions of this. let's start with, how do you bet to you are talking to? how do you know it is a good guy and he is not going to somehow do evil? guy, guyf you are bad means man or woman, young or old, you are already hacking. you don't wait for any program to start. it is already happening. we are adding good guys to the mix. the second major thing, the programs we run reward you only for good results. thatd deed every day and is the only thing that gets rewarded. if you have a malicious and could nation, why would you spend time? you get no benefit. that is the basis of the environment. knowing sociology, we know by guys are maybe one in
10,000. there are bad actors but 1000 more good actors. 15-year-old kids in the philippines, morocco, pakistan. everywhere. theyhave good intents, want to do good. they are a little too intelligent to fit into society can read they are sitting at home and wondering what to do with their lives. when you give them real work to do, they will do wonderful things that are good. that is how you make sure the form is positive. in programs like hack the pentagon, we did venting ♪ -- we did venting. -- wetting. i would throw it back to and say, how do you know your employees are all good actors? you don't score them the way we do. we keep track of everything they do. we know more about our hackers then you know about your
employees. i couldn't agree more. they are earning a reputation. they are also given the parameters. they are going to see, these are the parameters. this is the only place we want you to look. do not do denial of service. we do not want you to go to jail. willknow, this is what we keep me out of trouble but allow me to experiment. dan: we have a number more in that area. i want to get a broader perspective. its research on bug bounty's. how does the auto industry adoption compared to other
industries? casey: i think the people in this room have the maturity to get it. you can control your vulnerability if you know where it is. you can't compare the best control the behavior of an adversity. right question to be asking? you cannot control the behavior of someone who is intent and skills to attack you early. they are just going to do it. the task becomes, how resilient are you going to be when they come along? ant we have seen is incredible acceleration in adoption. you think of it as a spectrum. facebook and google. the crazy bay area tech companies. more aggressive when it comes to their adoption of technology
risk. at the other end, folks like the dod. western union. a bunch of conservative companies in this next. -- mix. the consistent trend we have seen, it is moving a lot quicker than we thought it would. that is driven by the results. that is driven by the efficiency. the severe need to get better at this quickly. consumer quickly demands are accelerating. having a way to have security be a part of that. it is driving demands. they are looking at the president being set by these tech companies and saying, that is kind of scary.
it is going to make some of us uncomfortable. they are stepping in and starting to do it. strong --thing is a there are those that understand sometimes you have to wear a suit and tie to work. if you are running a private program or a program in which you are trying to give an elevated level of trust to the people participating, you have to trust them more. the adoption of that as a way people are thinking about augmenting or replacing the things they are doing today when it comes to testing or even automated tools. spreading across the market even more rapidly. program, therec
are another five private programs. dan: you see this bug bounty going across all industries? casey: part of my job is to predict the future. so far, we have done ok. in terms of how it looks moving forward, i see five years time in this room, everybody is going to be doing this in some fashion to read it is not going to be because it is cool or a social pressure. it is going to be because you realize this is the most efficient way to get things done. between whatmetry they have at their disposal and what we are doing to compete, we are going to be poor off if we don't adopt it. i am a see it as inevitable. dan: when you think of your
role, chrysler, what do you think in terms of insider threat versus outside threat? how do you think about that? it can be bug bounty but broader. do you worry more? is it equal, 50-50? y are: i think ther 50-50. those inside have greater access, but the insider threat is not necessarily someone purposely trying to damage. it is more they are clicking on that link and responding to emails the are not supposed to. i wish we could patch stupidity, but it has not happened yet. you are going to see analytics coming. there was discussion about ai. it will be easier to detect weird internal behavior.
marten, back to you. software is eating the world. what does that mean for the automotive industry marten: we see everything of value to human beings is being governed by software to we love it because everything is fast and we can have apps and social networks. the problem is, all software is vulnerable. when the software eats the world this way, software needs to change. the software industry so i am guilty as accused. the automotive industry learned on to build safe cars, at least i think so. i remember safe cars with all kinds of arrangements to keep my life safe. that mechanical safety was, we need to have the same principle developing software.
we operate at the far end. we have to reflect the knowledge back to the designers and coders so they start developing code not as vulnerable. you can never get to 100% security. but we can get closer to it. whole thing of the future where everything is secure will not happen until we create a software development lifecycle an everydayty is consideration at every step of that chain. we need to feedback what we find to the designers. ofthey reduce the numbers injections, possibilities for overflows and all kinds of things. that is a job for the software industry. it is a societal challenge and societal problem. dan: one question from the audience, do we need to shift safety critical systems to open
source? marten: i think we have shown transparency trumps everything else when you build something you can trust. doing that with security, this is something there was a dutch researcher who said the essence of security must not be based on secrecy. a flock togical think secrecy would lead to security. it is the opposite. the more eyeballs you have watching, the quicker you can fix it. i certainly believe so. 100%orld hasn't shifted there yet. in the real world, things don't happen as beautifully as we would like but they are on a good path. the audience,from you see aspects rolled out to dealerships? the vehicle to inspection they do?
titus: i don't have any insight into that but use by dealers and car,nics to manipulate the that is part of our information security program. that is something that is a possible point of attack. something we are tackling together with the product development and electrical is nearing teams. it doesn't always get the attention it deserves but we take it seriously. dan: over to casey. is there sufficient anonymity enforced in bug bounty programs? any comments? casey: basically the president precedent out there is, pseudonym.
hackers have a tendency to use handles. that goes back a million years. not really but you get what i mean. trustes down to how much do you require in your interaction with these people. program, you are getting the vulnerability. up.have a payment flow set dan: thank you, dark lord, for your submissions. casey: in terms of what we do in terms of behavioral analysis, we iers thatther t involve proof positive identity verification. perspective,ogical
i don't think that should be necessary. ultimately it should of all toward being an open conversation where it doesn't matter who involved. ing data.ransaction we are far from us age where this is normalized and far from a stage where everyone is comfortable. saying,end up doing is if your paradigm is to require background checks or proof positive identification, we can provide that. nine times out of 10 what happens is the customer comes back and says, we get it. that helped us get started but it limited the pool. now that we understand how this works, we are going to start to relax those things. complicated subject. what it comes down to, optimizing for the level of
trust whichever vendor it is. whether required to get the thing going. that is the important piece. does the bug bounty program only focus on systems related to risks? only system risk? business operational risk? that is a great question. we make sure anybody can submit vulnerabilities and anybody can receive them. customers get additional andices where we go in write long reports with recommendations. we go as deep as they like to go. we want customers to develop their own skill and practice. an intrinsice function. many of our customers say, we have just two security people.
we need your help. there is a shortage of security experts. we need to make sure it really happens inside the companies. there are certain steps you take. one is you make sure it has attention from the top level. from the ceo and the governor's committee on the board. tohave customers who report the board of directors once a quarter. you have a ceo who loves this cyber security is an issue of alex safety. that gives the mandate to whoever is in charge. you have to make sure the security team sits close to the engineering team. it is the engineering team who produces these problems. onineers like to be focused opportunities where a security teams like to focus on problems. there's a lot of work to do and we do it with our largest customers. dan: we are out of time.
i want to give 15 seconds to each panelist. if there is one takeaway, something you would want all the attendees to think about a week from now, what would be the one takeaway you could highlight? time, it wouldks be interesting for everyone to revisit the thought of, how i am i going to get started with this? it not even is, it is how. does this look like for my organization? it is true in five years time my entire industry and indeed most industries are going to be doing this, how am i going to be a part of that? am i going to be a laggard or a leader? titus: the security researching community is an awesome resource and you need to find a way to harness them, engage them, bring them on the staff. marten: listen to the keynote
once again. take note of every single word she says, especially, cyber security is a matter of public safety. dan: -- foster care the system in ways defined permanent homes for foster children. investigative journalist nikole hannah-jones, who writes about racial segregation in the united state schools, she talks about her reporting on the issue and why school segregation persists today. this is one hour and 15 minutes.