tv Tech Innovation Panel at American Bar Association CSPAN September 4, 2019 7:56am-9:29am EDT
using the hashtag pmqs. >> in 1979 a small network with an unusual name rolled out a big idea, but viewers make up their own minds. c-span opened the door to washington policymaking for all to see bringing you unfiltered content from congress and beyond. a lot has changed but that big idea is more relevant than ever, on television and online, c-span is your unfiltered view of government so you can make up your own mind, brought to you as a public service by your cable or satellite provider. >> the american bar association hosted its annual meeting in san francisco. in this portion a panel of general councils from microsoft, oracle, lift, and 23 and me discussed tech industry, innovation, privacy and social responsibility. this is an hour and 35 minutes.
>> i'm lucky to be one of the 13 members of the annual meeting program committee. we are pleased to have a panel with us today. the committee itself is from around the country, practicing areas from construction, commercial, business, criminal law and our charge is to put together a small selection of the best cutting-edge programs every year. in the fall of 2018 we started with 50 submissions, looked for those that would be the most special, the most exceptional and we were lucky to have a proposal from the science and technology section and our moderator, heather rafter, entitled shaping our future, tech company lawyers on
innovation and social responsibility. the program isn't -- is an all women panel. it happened to work out that way. we have so many amazingly talented women in our tech community that it naturally fell together and we are lucky to have this group today. a few housekeeping notes, heather covered one of them, the materials are available in the apps, use your cell phone to silent if you haven't already. third, we welcome your feedback in the apps. there is a cle showcase survey. your comments were appreciate it if you can provide them. the moderator today, heather rafter, is providing legal services to the digital media industry for 25 years. she is a principal at rafter marsh in the bay area. digital design was the audio
portion of avid technology than she was former chair of science and technology section. you have an amazing group. take it away. >> there are some days you have to breathe deeply and say i am so excited when we have this panel. little bit of background and there is someone sitting over there. ray is a leader in the ava generally, a lot of awards for helping women and diversity and he is the reason i got involved in the ava and the reason i decided to put together the panel this year i reached out to dorian to say he was dorian's mentor, dorian daily, really grateful to him. we have been doing programs on the future of technology and general counsel programs for
how many years? since 1997-8, we started with someone named roberta katz talking about the future of the internet, we have done one on clothing, one on nano tech, so many general councils joining us that i am so pleased today. .. the way you can see who is who if you don't want to look at your app but we encourage you to download it is we organize everyone alphabetically either company. so lyft goes first and that would be christened server check. after kristen there is dev
stahlkopf for microsoft and the with next up dorian daley from oracle. always last but not least i'm so excited we have kathy hibbs from 23andme to remind us there's biotech in science, not just high check the world i know well. so the idea from this program you might've read about in the descrior but i'll just briefly go over it what were trying to achieve today so that it's lyft, microsoft, oracle, and 23andme exactly in that order are some of the most transformative tech companies shaping the way we think, tech, sites and biotech i should add, the way we think about privacy and cutting-edge legal issues from ai autonomous driving cars to genetic testing the facial recognition, to cybersecurity. the list is phenomenal at our challenge today will be to talk about not just as much as we can on these topics but you really
distill how the general councils even contemplate thinking about the future technologies and how we should shape regulation and the law. these companies that i just mention have been leading the way on policies also need to encourage diversity in the workplace. in this roundtable we will explore how these tech leaders proceed their roles in shaping socially responsible policies, addressing emerging areas of the law, and anticipating future challenges. i very much hope we will have a lively conversation centered around what innovation and corporate responsibility really means in 2019, and hope you will be hearing less and less from me and a lot more from the speakers. when you also, you've downloaded the app you will find incredible plethora of wonderful information here thank you, cytec, for providing a bunch of articles on the topic will be
talking about. thank you to the general counsel with this for social influencers, a new concept for general counsel. many have blogged, many have added the names to innovative policies are improving the world and we will talk about that. you can see their materials and those other companies and the annual meeting programs. if you have any problems finding them just come to me afterwards. with that, i'm going to not talk as much and i'm going to transition. one last word. when i was general counsel of the company for 14 years, our biggest challenge was this company called digidesign. when i started in 1994 -2008 1e biggest transformative thing our company was grappling with was converting music from analog to digital. i thought that was like such a transformative concept or in ways it was. it led to the whole digital
content economy piccola to questions about napster and digital copying and streaming. but honestly, now that seems narrower in scope. even back then was huge and this change how we consume content, to the issues that these folks are grappling with. i can't wait to hear how that all sleep at night and have to wake up handling these tasks. okay. we're going to start alphabetically again. kristin, i was thinking about you and special thanks to my son alex who works at lyft and connected us. i keep thinking you started at this company. give us a little bit about your background and then i'm going to ask you a few crazy questions. >> sure. so nice to be here, thank you, heather and also so excited to be in this company, really incredible. a little bit of feedback. so i started at lyft almost seven years ago but my history with the company actually goes back a few years before that.
i was outside corporate counsel tually for the investors and then ride which was the predecessor company back in jund $1 million which of the time was huge amount of money for the company and was really fortunate to be able to take over as outside corporate counsel for few years after that and was actually there at the original board meeting when the cofounders talked about this right sharing concept, the concept was moving this online car pooling platform on to mobile. and what did they have to tweak about the business model to make it work on mobile, you know, that moment when all the board members sort of swiveled their heads at me and said, is that legal? and my answer was, maybe. laws really were not written for this use case. transportation laws couldn't have possibly contemplated what
was bending talked about. and so but six months later which was november of 2012 i jumped on board with this crazy young company with 30 employees, fuzzy pink mustaches which a lot of the locals will remember, didn't know if the company is going to be around a year. didn't know if we're going to be legal in our one market, san francisco, that we were in at the time. here we are almost seven years later, a public company which was this year's big achievement all over the united states and canada, and so it's just been -- this is a very brief version of an incredible journey. >> thank you. i feel is very exciting. i guess when a supposed rack about her children but my son worked with kristin on that. that's to embarrass you, alex rafter. okay. dev, interesting when i talk
with dorian about putting together this panel she's like you must get dev i'm like, she's not local. she's also it way up there in redmond. i don't know if they come down to silicon valley. i pushed and pushed and i happen to know your predecessor brett smith and i think he was a helpful encouragement. will talk about his book a little bit later but we're so grateful you are here and when you think about microsoft, you probably have no clue, i didn't until it did some research and read brads book about how the other hand in everything and are really leading the way to think thoughtfully about technologies that are so far into the future and how to get the arms around them and come up with policies and work with other companies and governments so take it away, dev, as best you can in a few minutes explaining this huge world you're involved in. >> i'll start quickly with me. i think i'm the news general counsel among this group.
i've been in my role at microsoft for about 16 months. i was at microsoft for 13 years before the latest our h.r. legal function. make the transition from adding a role that was relatively narrow and incredibly deep to jumping into a really broad role where there are days everyday you get up and do something new and it's a different issue. it's been a fantastic transition period it's an interesting time to be general counsel intact for sure. i wake up every day and each day is different but there definitely are some recurring themes and a lot of it. i think things will talk but here, it's really issue for technology is moving so quickly that it's outpacing social dialogue about it, outpacing regulation. the places where i spend time on that and we are thinking about it at microsoft are facial recognition, artificial
intelligence, just data handling of privacy i think that is so fundamental to all of our companies. and so i just really look for it to the dialogue about that here. >> terrific. dorian, you were the first believer in this program and when we returned pickett who to get come you never gave up and help to assemble this, so thank you very much and again, i see you taking the leadership role that i used to have and i so appreciate that. >> thank you. i am dorian daley. my story actually pretty simple. i started at oracle 27 years ago. ray hired me in a litigation group, and i was a member of the litigation group for many, many years. i ultimately became head of the litigation group and oversaw litigation worldwide, and
investigations, and in a 2007 i was asked to be general counsel. it was i was a relatively easy transition for me. i been there for a long time. i knew the company. i knew the management team. i knew the board. i understood the trajectory of the company, and whey predecessor decided to step down and move to another company, another tech company, he did ask me to step in as interim general counsel and said he wanted to recommend that to the then ceo and president. but he wanted me to agree to it first. of course, you know, but you all need to make a decision about the general counsel position quickly because it creates distraction within an organization. and the next day the president of the company called me and said, i was driving down the peninsula. she was driving up the peninsula. peninsula. she called up and said i heard that has to be the interim general counsel but larry and i
think you should be the general counsel. why make a it temporary? we want you to do it. and i told her, this was the strangest job offer i'd have received in my life but, of course, took it because it was, it's been an exciting place. having been in litigation we do get visibility into all of the different areas of practice so that made it an easy transition as well. i do so much stuff within litigation and i've got my hands in some a different things, how much more difficult and challenging can it be? it can be more difficult and challenging, but at the same time incredibly exciting, incredibly fun, a fantastic team and i'm very, very proud of, some people have been there since before i was there and a lot of new people we have brought on, and i think of our core, we're up for all the new challenges as we develop new technologies and as new technologies emerge and with figure out how we enhance them,
how we can use them for our customers and at the same time to exactly what our customers want us to do, which is to drive their success, their businesses and their security. it's really been a wild ride. really exciting and interesting one and i'm still having fun. >> thank you. kathy, this summer my mother decided to give us all genetic dna testing kits. she got something on groupon side or to mention what were you thinking. but it led to a lot of personal questions i had about do i want to know you know, as i get on in years, do i want to know if certain genetic diseases like alzheimer's might be my future, or parkinson's? you can see how i feel about this topic. do i want my kids wouldn't information out there? i did a lot of reading on this
topic and they came to the conclusion, i'm so glad i don't have your job because it's a hard one. and when we spoke on the phone i loved how popular you approached it and what your company is thinking about, and your company, i have done it yet, it's going to get my dna. so please talk a little bit about your job and your background. >> thank you for having me. on the chief legal and regulatory officer for 23andme so it's a small company. we have about 700 700 employee. both legal group as well as our regulatory group for the reasons have mentioned we have an fda regulatory group which is what brought me to 23andme. i went into biotech in the mid-'90s by joining the company and original silicon valley company with one of the first buildings on the road. it was a physics-based company. everything that they did to metaphysics and they along with hewlett-packard are basically
phd students would work on the war effort at stanford. when that ended, stanford essentially enabled those folks if the one to start companies they gave them really cheap ground leases and that is why we have page mill road. it was the first time i really worked in tech or biotech. i knew nothing about physics. i would go to the stanford library in the berkeley library to find physics for dummies basically to learn about it. but i found myself motivated by biotech and so i've been at biotech since that time. and from there they do make linear accelerators for cancer treatments so that's regulated by the fda. but i but i went from there to v company where i was general counsel, a public company called monogram, and from there i went to genomic health after nine years at monogram, which is against a company in the same space. and that in november 2013, 23andme, what is really
probably the most red warning letter that fda has ever given to anyone, about the genetic test that was being sold to consumers. and so i got a call about whether i would talk to the founder and ceo of 23andme from a mutual friend and i said sure but i was not planning on doing anything other than talking to her. and start that conversation and she asked me if i do it in my immediate reaction was no but i'll help you. and then as i started calling people talking to them about what the opportunity that i saw was, which was because 23andme have gotten that warning letter, they had no choice unless the one to sell or go out of business, except to forge a path no one else had forged in the myself have been part of for several years about how you take information like that and fit it into a regulatory pathway is largely about physical devices and the risks that come from things that act on the body as opposed to information.
after a few months i called her back i said, you know, i actually said to my, h as i'm describing this i think it might interested in this. i called back and said i ght'vehanged my mind. i might actually want to do. she said great, i been waiting for you to figure that out. so i joined. it's been a little more than five years, and the first order of business obvious he was to address the fda. we do have five fda clearances and where the only people who do. do. and to do that we essentially had to prove that people could understand the information, which is aeally interesting thing to do. so we have that. we have a novel regulatory and then we do have consumer issues, data privacy issues, data security issues and all kinds of things that come out of really doing something that is novel but we think it's transformative in terms of the way people look at themselves and with you might
be able to become empowered around knowing what their disease risks are and finding out about that before it actually happens. you have a lot more opportunity with some of those things, if you find out earlier. >> i was just wondering after hearing these introductions if there were some common themes about how these women, these are role models, we're going to talk more about the technology but it just wanted to take a second and just acknowledge that each of you really had to think hard and decide to take on a very big job leading to unknown pathways of the law. i want to applaud you for doing that because i don't know if i would've had the courage to take on a job as big as you guys did. thank you and it makes me feel comfortable knowing your leading the way. since it isn't all women's panel, if any of you thought, you know, i'm going, meissen
gave it a book, alex, which was like just remember, , i can't remember the title, here that, and you can do this. sometimes when in finding i need incentive i read the book and i also think they, i'm also doing this the kind of show of the women that this is possible. i'm just curious if that i wasr part of your thinking to give you that extra courage to take on these big jobs? >> i know for me i first said no to my job when it is offered to me. i've gotten cofounders as outside counsel and i liked my job as outside counsel. i wasn't looking to go in-house. they were persistent. it sounds the same way anne wojcicki was. i was nervous they get on the scroll. only ever been, i've done by the financing transactions. i've never been in-house before paris circa never been a general counsel before. i was on the earlier side of my
career. i i knew the competitors in spae are hiring people as gc with many more experience than i had. and so i was concern that it wasn't going to be able to live up to what the role required. and i was actually pretty open with our cofounders about those concerns, and bridges were like sort of brushed them off, like no, we worked with you for a few years. we know which are capabilities are. it will be fine. yes. and so i just have to take that at face value and kind of dive in. it's been interesting, like open of the course of close to seven years which feels like 50 years, that i've outlasted many other, they gc is a my companies and many other folks and i've taken
the company through its whole lifecycle at this point. i actually just it have to be really sort of single and and long-term focused, -- sanguine, and that police and myself. of course i have all of those doubts taken this job. although the one dance say is when i took my job it wasn't the big job that it is today. it a job for a company that had less than $20 million in funding and 30 employees might not be around in a year. i knew that the success of the company wasn't going to rise or fall entirely with me. like i had a big role in it but there was a lot that had to come together. it wasn't just on my shoulders. >> i just wonder if the rest of you had a few thoughts like it seems like again rate is over, the importance of mentors, people who believe and trust in you. i suspect also having people who
support you as you rise up, right? >> for me a couple of things come one, brad smith has been a phenomenal mentor and support of mine. >> brad's book -- >> he's been so supportive. my experience has been different because i set down the hall from him for very long time and he's been a supporter. our cfo amy hood has been a profound inspiration for me. i had sort of the structure around and i wasn't stepping into a new company. i was stepping into a much bigger role that was very, very different but it was i think a little bit of a more natural, easier transition that said, sitting in a general counsel role as a woman i am very conscious of just a little bit of weight i not care as a about just diversity and wanting to be that role model. you feel like you can do what you can see, and so that
definitely is on my mind. >> i didn't have too much temptation to be honest. this was relatively easy transition because i been at the company for a long time so is about a day and i called my older brother who eventual counsel picky . eccentric or she should do this. he said of course, at a told my father, and his response was, pardon me, it's about god damn time. i didn't have too much of hesitation. i certainly had no qualms about being a woman in the role. i did as i took on the role see incredible opportunity to my gender in the position to be able to promote more women in the position but also to be in litigation and my outside counsel team to make sure with diverse groups in the outside
counsel teens pics i thought that was terrific opportunity. >> i would say i also reached out to a number of mentors particularly on the technical issue i was going to be dealing with which was very helpful, but i talked to the ceo, my thin ceo, and her story of coming to a small company from genentech was what it went to her with and i said, you know know your stoi decided to leave big tech and go take a risk on genomic health? you know, i think i should do this for 23andme, and it was great. it was great to have a woman ceo who had been through that. i did think about, i did reflect on sort of what i was at entrance terms of my family responsibilities and i think if my son had been younger, than he was at the time, i don't think i would've done because i did dit know that is going to be traveling back and forth
constantly to d.c., to other places like london to do with the regulators, and i don't think i would've necessarily done it. so it's not so much come for me it wasn't so much a gender issue as a sort of what is the state of my family, and canada really take on the stress, the travel, the hours at this point? i was fortunate in terms of the support i have at home for my husband and other people who help us in our extended family and chosen family, if you will, to be able to do that. that may be something i think women may posit a little bit more about men men in these roles but i think increasingly i think that's probably something we all think about. >> thank you for sharing that background because it's inspiring to so many of us. now we're going to delve into
the substantive issues we've been promising and/or threatening to talk about. we did several planning calls on this and the theme that emerged most that we're going to try to see if it's a theme that resonates with all our panelists is the theme of evolving technology may be ahead of public discourse, even the awareness of what's possible with these technologies. we're going to talk about, it might be ahead of the scope in most cases. you party mentioned this kristin of regulation and laws. so as we talked with areas of expertise in the substantive areas we're going to get some lessons on how they grappled with these topics. i think that i will start in this order again because it's easier for me to remember, but kristin, i don't even understand how you can even kind of, you started off where lyft was a rideshare company. we didn't have to hail numbers.
we had an app we could get someone to pick us up but now you think about the future of mobility in the broadest sense. as i i was preparing questionsm like, what crazy questions that come across your desk, and how do you go about thinking about them? someone is going to come in your office and say hey, can we start having rideshare with flying cars? you gave me a story about sweepstakes, question, which was one off-the-wall. if you could give us an insight to the fun questions that come your way which i i suppose are also very challenging. >> so being a very public facing a consumer facing brand, the marketing team is a a big component of the work that my team does. generate a lot of questions for us. kind of on the more fun side, one of the things i shared with heather was the fact we get the
craziest ideas for promotions. in fact, at one point some folks i think at the seattle office, this would've been near you guys, but came to us and said we want to write a sweepstakes for writers if we want to send five people skydiving tomorrow. the team is like how do we grapple with the liability issues? is of mobility not really that relevant to our product though, and you know, while we pride ourselves for much of being a creative team, a team of yes, and solution oriented, this was one of those like very easy knows because we just could not see the benefit from marketing perspective outweighing the crazy potential liability associated with this. but on a more serious note in terms of product development, we
are really embedded with the product team, constantly iterating and this can be anything from new modes on the platform to thinking about issues that are tied to autonomous vehicles, our recent license scooter launches which are very different than the historical issues lyft is at as primarily online matching platform for . now would you do with tangible real-world assets, different set of regulations. and so the cranberry to cover my team on a daily basis, it never slows down. it just picks up. by and large we really try to work with people to make things work, and so that means having extremely creative solutions oriented attorneys on the team. >> do you work outside computer pick up the phone and call --
excuse me for using the you word, uber, should we be working to get on some policy issues? >> of course the product launch that competitively sensitive, we are not go to talk to our biggest competitor about that but certainly throughout the years when we come especially the early days of writing we're looking to launch in different markets if we have often had a friend relationship with uber, friendlier than people might know based on the press, because it is very helpful for new and disruptive technology to show regulators that what you're doing actually isn't all that crazy. in early days of ridesharing when we were not legal anywhere, the big job was actually just going in and talking collaboratively with regulators and explaining to them what we're doing, explain why wasn't this brave new world, why was just a natural extension of what already happened with an overlay of safety that was allowed by the technology.
and so it's been taken very iterative over the years. >> thank you. i'm just curious as we talk about transformer technology, how many of you have used lyft? so large show of hands and i'm not going to ask about the other company. [laughing] how many of you use rideshare generally? it's completely transformed my life. when i go to a country where it's not available, unlike what to do? what were about to see a lot of changes, scooters, a lot of autonomous vehicles, right? >> in looking at the future, lyft's corporate mission is to improve people's lives with the world's best transportation. i've always appreciated that was a very broad mission. it was never just about ridesharing. it's really about mobility in general. when i have outside counsel asking me like whitey want to go to license scooters? this is a completely line of business than you've ever had
before. so to me it felt obvious and natural because it was an obvious extension. a car is not the best way to get from point a to point b. >> i love that. hopefully we'll have time to talk about social calamity -- philanthropy. i know one of the missions of lyft that upon for my son is to make the world a greener place. we can you ridesharing with scores of things, you will eliminate the need for large parking garages and have greener place on the planet but hopefully we'll get to that later. i'll ritual just going to embarrass you a little bit in this book which is coming out soon, tools and weapons, brad smith as president of microsoft in advance copy. it's called the and the peril of the digital age. i had the pleasure going to college and law school with brad. the book covers many of the themes i was really surprised to find this book, as we envision this panel. we were thinking along the lines
of these topics and this encapsulates the topics were discussing very well. but his quote about dev, , whici loved, he wrote, during a typical week at microsoft, it's not unusual to find dev stahlkopf, our general counsel, spending part of her time working with people on projects that look a rent quarters to ahead of looming problems, and controversies. so when dev and i prepared in advance for this call can we decide she cannot speak about every one she looked around and everything looming problem and every controversy. at a think you're going to talk a little bit about facial recognition. >> i was going to say i need to figurexact out e what it is -- >> i think it was a good thing what he wro. >> i think facial recognition actually is a really great example of a lot of things that are probably schematics across
our biggest challenges today. you think about facial recognition, and at its space there's a a ton of promise fora suspect a lot of people here have iphones and you look at your iphone and the face id log you in. that is not a convenient but it's a lot more secure and a password. there's a lot of promise with that technology but it is developed really rapidly. we started talking publicly about it a year or two years ago and nobody was talking about it and we couldn't figure out necessarily why. people were saying why is this a conversation for you? fast forward to now and is becoming more of a conversation but still i don't think the social dialogue has caught up with the issues and certainly regulation hassett. i think there's some unique features about facial recognition, , sorted as a poliy issue that are pretty informative. one is it's an emerging technology where it doesn't always get things right. actually nation.
would you think about the challenges of the technology, it's things like bias. facial recognition is cut basically on data sets its of the data that is that in is how facial recognition lunch. one of the early challenges is if you look at how quickly available data sets for faces, a lot of them were white male faces. facial recognition didn't work as well identified minorities, identifying women. depending on how facial recognition is used, what i can do is create some pies. bias. it could be pretty harmful. thinking about all of the implications of how that technology might be used, is it far enough along the path that we are comfortable with the juices? and then it doesn't take thinking too far down the path to think about uses that we might not as a company or as an industry necessarily be super comfortable with. you think about some mass surveillance uses, think about even some police uses today what
are the technology isn't quite there yet. figuring out if it's not regulation, how do we self regulate? how do we put together principles that make us comfortable that our technology is use in the right way. >> i saw some at an book or something you wrote about the key topics and your these topics and they are so vast, fairness, transparency, accountability, nondiscrimination, consent, while full surveillance. i think microsoft from what i've read has been an amazing job of trying to get out ahead of these issues. even working with other companies, correct, and tried to come up with some basic rules and structure and also talking to government? >> it's a really great example of where we're better together. we can, and do our best attempt at a first half on principles and to think i'll go with these things is to create principles and actually regulation or propose regulate is welcome the
minimal viable product. the idea we may not have perfect the first time around but let's figure out what we think the guard rails are in the guidepost. and if we can work together across interest, , with governments and civil society as well, , if we put our heads together and think about it we will probably come to a better results for such good question to ask of all give the little get to the next peer my brain is full of it more ideas than it was before. dorian did a very good job of reminding me how much oracle has expanded since the days i visited oracle with ray. how many acquisitions have done recently? >> about 150, 160. >> oracle is no longer just about being a database stored in the club. dorian and give us, , she's givn us some background, even more. the question i have for you about the enormity of the job and the scope of what oracle is doing, if you could talk a little bit about where do you
perceive the threats coming from? how is that for a small question? >> sure. >> your store all the data that everyone wants access to. what's the biggest threat there, dorian? let me first say about for a couple really important things i want to emphasize that both kristin and dev mentioned, and that is part of our jobs and our success is built on embedding our teams with the development organization. so that as these issues come up, whether their technical issues, legal issues or they are policy issues, or even ethical issues, we've got people that are right there having a discussion with the developers. i think that's critically important. and then the dialogue with regulators. i've been doing this for a long time, speaking with regulators, and i don't care what anybody
says. they are not always at the forefront of technology. a lot of our job is to educate them on these technologies, and that is been true for a very, very long time it was true when ray was the general counsel at oracle, and that is an ongoing effort to do that in a really, really helpful kind of way. where are the threats? the threats are frankly everywhere. we do believe that the world's most important data is in oracle databases, and there are a host of applications that are oracle applications and other companies applications that are helping to utilize that data. and it is true that for government entities and for banks and for healthcare companies, there are organizations that want that data for one reason or another. the threats that we hear about a
lot, the once they capture our attention, are the external threats, the state actors, the cyber criminals. and they exist and they are very, very sophisticated. and so part of our job is to be more sophisticated, nature we are developing technologies that are more sophisticated than what they are developing a what they are using. that's a lot of what our effort has been in the last many years. frankly, even since our inception because the first project was for the cia. we are very, very focused on protecting that data for our customers and, of course, for ourselves. but the vast majority of the intrusions, the threats, are internal. they are either somebody simply is not changing password or having a really simple password or just an intro actor that is a bad actor. there has to be not just
technologies to be able to combat that as well. every company has to have a really, really robust data governance structure to be able to deal with those kinds of threats, as well as using the technology. that is by far really what we're hearing from our customers is the need to protect their data. and so as i say we are very, vey refocus on that. >> does oracle have a place where companies can go were trying to get up to speed and get the tips, the lessons learned? >> we do talk an awful lot about this and i've been talking a lot about it lately in forums around the world come to talk with how you can put together these kinds of structures using what we do as a model. so, for example, for years we had an oracle security oversight committee that is chaired by me in one of our ceos at her chief corporate architect would bring in the heads of all of the i.t. organizations on a
quarterly basis, and we conduct what i just call sort of a corporate colonoscopy. so it can be very unpleasant if we identify an issue, and we call people in and called on the carpet. there's a very, very clear direction to everybody within the organization about whether priorities are. that's one aspect of it. i gave a speech about, earlier this year, it was in march in kenya at the school of monetary policy at the invitation of the commercial bank of kenya who are embarking on this huge data warehousing project. we've gotten very for sensitive data and we've been working closely with them, and sort of went through the different elements of a good conference program but it's great for us to get to speak with one another. companies talk to one another about good practices. the technology is really, really
important, too. focus on how can we build the technology in a way that really prevent the bad actors from getting in, prevent intrusions from internal resources, and then if there is some a penetration, how how to kill it basically? how do you make your robots better than the other robots. >> sounds complex. should be of confidence? >> you should have conference. we should have a degree of confidence. bad actors can we all know this, they are really sophisticated. they are very for sophisticated and some of them are extraordinarily well-funded. we have to direct our r&d dollars to that but we also have to do it on the government side because so many intrusions are from just simple hygiene problems that companies often don't think about, the ones you heard about in the press preciously were some of those. >> when you say government side can you expound on that. >> is what you mean.
>> as i think you just agree also have to approach from the government side. >> governance. >> but we do speedy we do engage with governments quite a bit of this to explain to them what is possible, what is being done in industry. here's what some of the collaboration that we all have in the industry is a really helpful, because i think in some places there's a sense that there is a lack of care, that there is the talk but not really the walk. that's not the reality. because with all are, have to be responsible to our customers and to our shareholders. they have expectations. that collaboration amongst companies and with governments to help educate them into what is possible and sort of what is in process is incredibly important. >> that's another issue we are touching upon is just we need to work not just with the government in the u.s. but these are global issues.
that's the thing that came loud and clear an article. this is the perfect segue to you, kathy. what i asked dorian to get confidence, now that you know, i'm telling you what you'll be getting my dna, all right? should i have confidence in the safety and the security and, you know speedy yes, absolutely. >> i don't want insurance companies to know, those kind of question. >> i think the benefit of 23andme had and still has is that when the company was founded about 12 years ago its mission was to take the scientific developments that come out of the human genome project that was largely u.s. tax presided and found it all the fantastic discoveries about what was the actual cause of cystic fibrosis? can we identify the carriers of cystic fibrosis? both make the disease better and make it less likely somebody is going to be born with a genetic
disease like in doing genetic counseling and things like that. so the information of what we have to do to return a health resort, not your ancestry results but a health result like your risk of breast cancer, we've had to demonstrate to the fda that we have 99% positive predictive value and a 99% negative predictive value with a 95% confidence integral. we have just tested that tens of thousands of time. you can be very comfortable with the accuracy of the information, which is part of how we make things safe. and then there's a combination, we do security from the standpoint the same way banking works. it always makes myself, our marketing folks and our security folks just set their teeth on edge will reread the present article that describes and then i open it in oco no, we don't
know your results. you have to put in your security credentials into your account just like you do with your banking. that's what will marry your personal information to the genetic file. we keep the database is separate to keep them protected. so even if there is a hacking event, the chance somebody can hack both and we remarriage the databases is obviously what we are aiming at protecting. we have to go further than that because the power of your genetic information, part of the power sharing information. if you do find out that you have genetic risk for a disease, you do want to talk to your physician about it. we have to get people additional information about what they should think about. we did talk to people about the fact that we in the u.s. have genetic information nondiscrimination act, it applies not just to things like our products but also to medically tested genetics, if you go and get tested by her doctor you might find these things out as well.
that prevents employers and health insurance companies from using genetic information to make a discriminatory employment or health insurance decision. but if you put on facebook, i'm not sure that you can be really confident that somebody wouldn't use your information. we have to tell people those types of things as well because they have to take some responsibility in terms of how they share their information. the other thing that people can do with their genetic information is share it to build up his large family trees, and we don't do that but they will share their raw data online with others to do that. we give people information about doing that. we basically tell them, reminder, it's kind of like a flashing warning. you're taking take your informn outside of our secure system. you have to check the studio doing that. you have to be aware of it. it's not going to be protected. you are publicly sharing information. there are consequences to that.
so there's a lot of different things that go into giving people the security that they can make, they can opt to buy the product and use in the way you want to, but also giving them cautions and warnings about some of the things they also to think about. because this is genetics and fundamentally, you share this with the people you're related to come to our children, your brothers, parents, cousins, all of that. you have to be thoughtful about not making a decision for other people. you might want to know, or not, whether you have risk of alzheimer's. but we give you a lot of supportive tools and making that decision but we don't want you necessarily to go and share that with your family members without considering whether they would make a different decision. i think we have a good balance and there's a lot of educational content in the result. most of it is actually
educational content around, you know, before you've seen in alzheimer's result for example, you first have to about the health project, you have to register and so, yes, i want health result, then three most serious results, brca genes can alzheimer's, and parkinson's risk, for each one of those you have to go through an education module and jeff to opt in to see the result. because we know they're different considerations there, and we want people to thoughtfully select the information they want. but as part of that we also tell them it's great that you made the decision you have made, but leave it up to other people to make that decision for themselves. >> i think i'm one of our calls you talked about the issue of privacy, you think about which includes the right to choose and transparency. what i i always find competent about your wolf versus the other panelists is as you said my
brother can make decisions that impact me, or i might find information relative that i didn't know about commences iny family is unique in that area, but so far that hasn't happened. but it just opens up all these enormous issues. people thought that anonymously put a child up for adoption or sperm donor, the whole world out is just changed in ways never anticipated. you have a big job. >> we do. and i think culturally that's changed a lot and definitely you think back 50 years ago in the e 1960s, if you had a family member who had cancer, most likely the physicians told you not to tell the patient. the patient did not know and they were not told what the actual diagnosis was. you cut to today, that would be probably really rare and very uncomfortable for people to do, but that same thing existed around fertility treatments. in the 1960s 60s people were
told they use sperm donation not to tell a child, not to tell people. that has medical consequences for people because they don't know what their actual ethnicity might be order actual parentage, and so when they come to tell a doctor with her family health history is, they're giving necessarily inaccurate information. but that likely has changed but there is definitely a a generational situation will redo the people who will find that at the dad when were in medical school was a sperm donor because it will find a way to minute, how can i have all these half siblings? this is impossible. in some situations that parent is still alive and have a conversation about it, and in other situations that parent is alive and you can surmise, and with customer care folks what people with it, was your father a medical student, a phd student at a university that is known to have done fertility
treatments in the '50s or 60s? it's pretty easy for us to go back to the tea leaves of what a likely situation is there. but again, as an entire surprise in that situation. >> i can only imagine the stories you about on a daily basis. >> and the ethical standards that exist now, there are limits if someone is using fertility treatment. now they are told the child should be told there donor conceived and there's not such shame in hiding about the information so there's ways to prepare people for that. but there are also limits, it will not let a sperm donor create 150 siblings. and those ethical standards in the standards have developed over time so there are these cases that, you know, decades ago were much more extreme. >> twenty-threeandme has developed the technology and they developed the educational framework around it but then it also emphasized the concept of
personal responsibility as well. i think that something we all think about, there's a lot that we do but we can't forget about the personal responsibility. we hear a lot from folks often about the issues, the concepts of security and privacy and as you mention maybe something gets put on their facebook page. so be thinking about this in a deeper sense, in a more holistic sense. >> i love that segue to personal responsibility because one of the things i would ask you broadly ties on social responsibility versus the bottom line of your company. one of the things i was thinking about as you are talking is i have run this question by you guys, so sorry. is, is there a technology we developed internally and you think, were not ready to release this yet, it is just not the time, it is too transformative, we haven't gotten her arms around the impact we could be
talking artificial intelligence, robotics, wrapping the world, whatever it is. i was just curious to think,, release that but hold off on because it's just really far ahead of its time? >> i don't think it's a matter of doing think it's too far ahead. the question is, is it ready and never develop the right framework for it? everybody loves transformative technologies. that's what your customers want. your shareholders want that. employees get excited about that. i think the question is just a different one, is it really ready? are you going to deploy some sort of medical robotics tool that isn't quite ready? that would be a disaster and that would mean your company is headed for failure. you are going through and doing all of the testing just as you wod with software, with any other technology and you have a confidence that it is ready and
you develop the framework around it. i think that's really what we focus on. >> i would totally agree. for me, that becomes most real when we think about future of autonomous vehicles and that would be a massive decision for many, many good companies that are working on this technology, which is like how to get to these incredible intervals in the technology and how to make sure the cybersecurity is robust enough? that will ultimately be i think the thing that determines the timely action of autonomous driving becoming ubiquitous. >> i also think it's not just the technology but it's the use cases, who are the customers and however using it and every ready for those uses both as the technology for enough along and are there the right principles or controls, whether it's regulatory standards or whatever that is. >> peeking around corners. >> i would agree. i think dorian said it will. we rely and scientific development, so there is a long
trajectory in terms of proving out the signs that underlies what we are going to return to folks. because we're doing it without a prescription and director over the counter, the same way you can cannot go in a by claritin but used up to get a prescription for certain allergy medications, part of that is how do then make sure the customer who's going to bite knows what they're buying, lies the right product and then uses it safely? you have to have a pretty long trajectory and a pretty high confidence in the science before we release a new product. that enables you to use that time to develop the other support systems you might need and to think through those things. usually by the time it's ready scientifically, you've had the opportunity to really understand how is it going to fit in, are the doctors going to be prepared? at least seven people in with the risk identified, our
physicians prepared to help those folks? is their support? can they do anything about that is how we need to look at that. >> in our last half hour i will probably do a little more rapidfire questions and encourage all to agree or disagree. agassi, have we struck the right balance? >> i think it's -- no. -- privacy. i'll give you a better answer. my a tiny baby sitter use a second depends, depends on where you are and what situation you're in. it's very fluid. i think one thing that we can probably all agree on, gdpr and its progeny are here to stay and we can to fetch how much would like a difficult was to get the program in place and keeping it updated by the fact of the matter is that it is hoped heln many ways to create discipline,
not within our legal team that within the entire organization that we are responsible for. it's no longer matter where privacy, the domain of the legal team or even the i.t. team, it's everybody. everybody has a responsibility. some of that actually is because of the structure that gdpr created, and so it will remain fluid as more countries develop their own laws. some are very much model on it. gdpr, some go beyond what gdpr does, and some are still considering, you know, here and the united states a bit of a mess. we've got no uniform law. in california it's quite difficult. so when i say it depends, it's very difficult to manage all of these when you have a global company and to make sure you're
privacy. i do think it's scary to imagine we could be in a position in a few years we have 50 states patchwork of regulations and laws. i am hopeful that will be some standard created we can all agree, that's kind of our minimal viable project i guess it but right now i think it's raised the tide for all companies in a positive way. .. . >> well, and i suspect that we would all agree that the long-term successes, the tech
sector or the science sector more broadly is really going to require trust as relates to privacy, as it relates to security. so it's extension -- existential to all of us. just like with facial recognition, nobody was talking about it. with privacy ten years ago consumers in the u.s. weren't focused on it. now, one of the things that we did in the wake of gdpr, we're extending the rights to not just people in europe, but globally and the interesting thing we saw as we look at our data now, years out. people exercising their rights more than the europeans are the americans. in the u.s. we have more inquiry about individual data subject rights than we do in europe. what that says to me, it matters to people in the u.s. the way that we are going to continue to see.
we've published scientific papers on genetics and diseases and traits and all kinds of things. so we need to get consent because we've always known that it's a medical product and it had a, you know, na as its mission, we have looked to the ohar office of human subject research protection and we have an external rib. we've worked hard, and the first in the industry to have a transparency report to tell people about any law enforcement requests for data. we've never given data to law enforcement, but we've had requests. we have clear policies on that, we have policies, separating concerns about consent. >> these are in the materials. >> it was important for us to get the industry to rally around that and work with consumer groups and now, as we deal with the legislatures on the state and federal basis,
what we're trying to do is to educate them because obviously a lot of what's going on from the perspective is coming out of the terms of service which consent-- default consents people into things. there are aspects of the industry that have never used that, so-- including ours so it's a little bit of a kind of threading the needle to make sure that the rubric that gets put in place, understands there are consented research situations. but it's a huge aspect. it's probably the thing our customers second only to looking at the product spend the most time looking at, what do we say about privacy, security and data use. you've been modest, you haven't mentioned your role in putting together the overall policy recording genetics testing. >> we have put together with the others in the industry, the privacy forum, which probably a lot of people in the room and on the dias have worked with, that's the consumer group that has specialty areas.
so we did bring together several of the other folks in the industry and got people to sign on to industry standards, which we're using and many people in the industry are using so that people can have confidence and consistent information and they can make an informed choice about, a, do they buy a product. if they do, which product do they buy? and what does that mean? so, i think i totally agree, i think that the legislation and gdpr if anything has been helpful because it has set a standard and hopefully we can get to a federal standard as well. i think at the moment with looking at individual legislation, and they have-- each one has slightly different flavor to it, if you will, that will probably ultimately be really confusing for consumers. and think that's a theme on this panel. i know that oracle and microsoft have bonded together to come up with some agreements with on certain policies that are forward thinking on privacy
i think and data security and i hope i have this rightments -- right. and it's different than the darker ages when i was a general counsel and i think it's a new theme with technology, working together and anticipating the need for a shared vision on policies is the way to go. >> i'm going to be a bit contrarian on that, i think that's been happening for quite some time. >> i'm very old. >> you're not older than i am. [laughter] >> but i think the -- i think what's different is that we're all talking about it more, you know, but in fact, we have been working together for a really long time on a number of issues, principally, broadly, technology related what they might relate to and i trust policy, privacy, commercial issues, anti-corruption issues.
talk a little about your role and know you're not the number one person, it was michelle sang, but you did sign on to this diversity policy. what i love is that these general counsels are not only thinking about representing their companies on emerging technologies, but broader social issues. so if you could talk about that in our materials. >> yeah, so last, i don't know, december time frame, a new york law firm got quite a bit of attention for incoming partner class which was overwhelmingly white male, i think one woman out of all of the elected partners and people rightly called them to task for how could they possibly have a lack of such diversity in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, et cetera, in terms of the partnership of that firm,
especially different the demographics of the people who are graduating from law school today. i think it's roughly 50% female. and a car sharing company gathered together about 170 general counsels and signed on to this letter, basically demanding that that law firm's hiring staff there matters. according to general principles of diversity and inclusion. as dorian mentioned earlier, one of the things that we were able to do in our roles i can is positively influencing societal change. we believe that diversity is important in terms of our legal services providers, we can actually, you know, obviously with our dollars, for me i can say without stopping to think a
second that it absolutely is important, we're working on cutting edge technologies. we need people from a diversity of backgrounds to do that working around corners and proactively identifying different issues. it's similar to that, that facial recognition part. and if it's all white men, this is part of the broader picture. this is the same thing when you're talking to your outside counsel. you want a diversity of background, diversity of subject matter to be able to better understand actually what are the challenges that you're facing, and so i was very proud to sign onto this letter and very inspired, actually, by michelle. putting a positive foot forward. she's done tons of speaking on the topic since then and i think all of us, i'm proud of her being a thought leader in this capacity. but for me, it was something that has always been important
internally and i was glad to see it get more public attention. >> and i'm going to give a nod to ray here because 27 years ago, when i joined oracle's litigation team, he had included in the retention letters a requirement that-- not that it's a diverse background had to be on the team, but considered. we started with consider. over the years it evolved and the team had been incredibly diverse. many of my trial teams, most actually now, have women in the lead. all of the compliance partners that i work with in complying to investigations are all women in the lead. so such a long time ago, set a standard although i can't sign onto the letter, nobody asked me to, but it's something that we have been doing for a very,
very long time and it's-- what's interesting is that it began with, you know, a male general counsel who recognized how importance it is. and i think we understand the importance of having allies on issues of diversity. >> i with a definitely agree. i was on a panel with a white male, he said, look, i'm up here. you can all tell i'm a white male and this is why it's critically important for me to be talking about diversity and inclusion because this is not a women's issue, this is not a black issue, this is everybody's issue and that really resonated with me in the way he said it. this is an issue that everyone should care about. >> this dialog, honestly, how you all have expressed it gives me shivers in equating the diversity and as a pragmatic
matter as we develop technology, the work force, whatever it is, and the it's fantastic that's the topics are becoming aligned. we're getting shorter on time. how do we define diversity? are we doing pretty well? are there parts that are not. a topic near and dear to my part one of my children part of the lbgt community. that's one part of diversity. i'm delighted we have all women on the panel, but we're not being represented in terms of ethic diversity and-- >> i signed onto the letter, too. there's a number that we participate in and there were great discussions about, because it wasn't the fact that it was-- i think there were-- i think it's almost 13 people on there as kristin pointed out, one woman, apparently
caucasian from what we can tell from looking at the head shots, but there was good discussion we couldn't tell what was and wasn't and there was a lack of gender background and diversity. i got a lot of letters and calls and things like that. and talking about the diversity that they have and i thank for the companies, companies focus quite a bit on diversity. no question we have a long way to go and we spend a lot of time recruiting female engineers and really have improved in that area. my department is out of the ten lawyers in my legal department, four of us are caucasian. the other six are african-american, asian, or identified as more one way, but it took him to get there and i
spent a whole company. what it took for us, which i think was eye opening. we were seeing the diversity of candidates at the front end. that's where the issue is. if you open your till ter, making sure you have the people you're interview, the rest will shine through and you'll find that you'll have a diverse team. if you use networking, you're going to end up with people who look like you. >> there are tools, actually a tool that you can use to try to make sure that your pipeline is more-- has more diverse candidates. we started using this a couple of years ago and we were excited about it. i heard them speak at a chip summit. and the possibilities are really to be pretty cool in terms of what else you could do with the technology. that's been helpful.
and you start your recruit at law schools that have very, very student bodies and-- different students bodies. and many things you can do. you can work with our law firm, many set up diversity committees and they define it like we do. we can share information with we're doing, what they're doing. and there are some that are not helpful, but we want to get to some of what works. >> i think the dialog is getting more complex around intersectionalty. you can think of racial diversity, gender diversity, people with disabilities as sort of of these sort of solid groups that fit in this silo, but you'res missing a lost thinking about how the diversity comes together.
sometimes it can be a more challenging experience for people. i think that that conversation has been pretty constructive as well. >> i do love how this dialog is continuing to evolve as the world becomes more diverse and more wonderfully complex. so hats off to all of you for what you're doing in that area. okay. in the final ten minutes, since this is an aba panel. i think i'm going to ask your thought, maybe one case mentioned, one regulation. so if each of you, could think about your share with evan-- everyone here, more reading materials? and do you think we have it on for wiser and smarter. that's a big question, but this is the american bar association. oh, my goodness. >> you know, the job of a general counsel is to be like a jack-of-all-trades. i know. >> and maybe that's a good answer. >> and where do you get your
information? >> gosh, well, so i will give a substantive answer, but actually to that point, i don't know about you, but a lot of the beginning of my day is being filled on on what happened. >> don't need a bunch of articles and half the content with what's going on and also being in the tech industry leading various tech publications and that's both law and business oriented to make sure i'm going to be the best counsellor i can be. substantively, i think what's most important for us is something we've touched quite a bit on here. what is the future of privacy, regulation legislation. if it's going fob different in 50 states, there's no way for
us to operationalize or engineer around 50 different sets of requirements especially if they're in conflict. so it's making sure that we have people engaging at the federal level and major states levels to make sure what eventually happens is both protective of consumers, but also common sense. >> okay. >> the next. >> i would take a statute that is probably less for the group. >> an area that we haven't talked about i have been focused on in the last months, digital safety content, especially in wake of the shootings in new desand. >> in just a couple of weeks post the shooting australia passed a law very, very quickly, with little input with industry. and platforms to take violent
content down. one is how typical it passed or there wasn't the typical engagement or-- it was effective within five days of when it passed. i was flying to australia to talk about the law. by the time i landed, it was to be effective the next day. so the rapid pace when these kinds of issues happen, that legislation can come into place. it's a good example why we should constantlily be involved in the dialog. >> in your mind how it turned out. >> i think there are aspects of it on trying to address the right thing, but twaut a dialog ap-- and it's hard to pass a statute like that. the second thing about it is the penalties we're seeing more and more. it carries criminal sentences
for the executives, they're not able to take for 35. and you take a listen about that and i think --. >> just this question, i thought about the kinds of things that we're dealing with now, probably it's gdpr, gdpr and understanding that and understanding all the progeny because it touches everything that we do and our customers are intensely interested in it. >> is it the states ccgpa. >> there are bills to make it better so absolutely and i-- we thought we got our arms
around one. >> it's evolving and takes up a mind share for the security professionals, but all of the lawyers, people in development, it's really front and center. we're if he, if he focused on, i don't think i eye-- and what the businesses deal with, and sarbanes-oxley, anti-trust issues. those are still there, and i'm taking off the ball, that would be a very, very dangerous thing. >> oh, yeah those. [laughter] >> exactly. trade, huge, so-- >> and i would agree on gdpr. even if you're not a tech lawyer, read it, it is a really well architected framework and it applies to employees as well, it's not just about your commerce which i think that's been largely missed in the u.s.
it applies to eu citizens although it can apply to eu citizens regardless of where they live. in that vein, of course, i look at a lot of the health tech issues, but i think broadly tempt r at the moment because there are legislative processes still gummed up, you can look to the eu. there's an eu statute iddr, which is the regulatory or in vitro devices and it's something that was put into place and passed a couple of years ago and it would be fully effec effectual in 2022. while our government is not working quickly on the legislative front the eu process, because it is a multicultural, a multi-country process with the member states. they tend to have a lot of legislative history. it might take three years for something to pass so when it
does pass, it usually has penalties in, in the money they have a grandfather in there, but ultimately that will trigger off just as gdpr did around privacy. if u.s. companies can do this for european citizens why shouldn't they, why wouldn't they do it for u.s. citizens. you can look at precedence out of the eu and think about whether those are things that are going to ultimately end up in our legal code as well. >> i would say for me, i don't know if i sensed. i get a lot of -- my background, stanford has a best practices conference and i'm going to end with a quote from that. a book i mentioned from brad
smith and his co-author talks about the perils of the digital age and lies out things we talked about. from microsoft's perspective, but i think it's a kwar -- an excellent book and well-balanced. and the american bar association, we can't forget about the aba. their materials contain a lot of good articles on the topics we talked about. get active in the aba, it's a tremendous source of information. and versus committees, many ways to get active. happy to talk about it. i'm going to end this with a chance to finish up, but here is my lead off. >> at the stanford conference, there was a court i loved. the concensus was, this is a very challenging time to be a general counsel given the tech backlash and the private and
security law. agreed? >> yeah. >> we have a unanimous decision on that one. >> i think it's been challenging, people who have been again counsel would say it's been tough for a long time. and it's not exactly monolith. we work for companies who have their hands in lots of diverse and really interesting things, hard subjects sensitive subjects. i think it's going to be a job that that's-- we're all so at it. >> i love a challenge and that's why i'm here. i feel lucky that i get to go in and be kind of stretched to my intellectual capacity every single day. it never gets dull. >> and part of the solution.
>> and so my final question was the big topic, you feel like at your job, you get to essentially follow through on the mission of your company and take a deep breath and so far it sounds that way from your special projects are thinking of the world at large and respecting these topics. and artificial intelligence, robotics, you feel like you're being thoughtful as parents, as citizens? >> i agree, i love a challenge. i'd be bored if i didn't-- if it wasn't like this. i think for most people who take on these roles, you kind of know that this is going to be a part of it. it's a good day if i finish 30% of the things i thought i was going to do. that's the number one thing that happens every morning is some part of your calendar is going to blow up.
there's a meeting that's going to be scheduled. some call and you have to be flexible to adjust that. i think that's great. i think that some of the things like facial recognition, that was on the phone and they sent this thing about doing facial recognition so you can find notes of your kid in the camp. there was nothing wrong with the terms of service, i quickly realized i don't know enough about this to actually snap a photo of my son positively identify him, and then, now, figure out what's going to happen with that later. and so, i do think that, you know, it does move fast even for people in the industry. and that's going to keep happening and it's largely beneficial. but clearly, we're struggling with things like the economic displacement and how to talk about that and that is probably going to be-- that's probably going to put
privacy under the same and understanding how privacy works and the next issue, what a career is going to look like for the next several generations, what's work going to look like for the next several generations and probably a much more all encompassing topic than ones that are to deal with right now. >> big topics. any final words? do we have confidence? the ada talks a lot about the rule of law. are we going to be helpful in our roles to get the law to think thoughtfully about these enormous societal issues driven by technology? we're comfortable that things are going to be all right? >> if we don't have hope and promise for that-- >> we are going to leave the last few minutes of this discussion on tech innovation, with a quick reminder watch all of our programs on-line at c-span.o