tv Charlie Rose PBS February 25, 2014 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin this evening with the crises in ukraine, talking about john herbst, iam bremmer, phone know hill and charles kupchan. >> only $3 billion made it in the coffers with another 2 billion that was coming. but then the crack down that was failed during the olympics, that money is no longer there and the russian government has said okay guys you can find that two billion from somebody else how about the imf. >> rose: we continue talking about the internet and the digital age with eric schmidt and jared cohen. >> it's a free and open internet and the connectivity of the world which i spent my whole life sort of working toward
technically and now a political and legal level. the stakes here are huge, right. education, entertainment, huge markets. the freedoms of citizens. google is a perfect placement there are others as well. >> we're in a decade long transition where we'll go from a minority of the world population being on-line to the entire population being on-line. one, you want a front row seat. two you want to be heart of ensuring that new found connectivity is a force for good in the world. >> emily: we conclude this evening with oscar nominated documentary called the square.
>> our fundamental interest is democracy, human rights and the rule of law in ukraine. this is not about a choice of ukraine between russia and the eu, it is about setting the country on a democratic path for the future. >> rose: we begin this evening with the unrest in ukraine, a man under way for the ousted president victor yanukovych. authorities seek his arrest on charges of mass murder by killing during the protests last week. mr. yanukovych believes to be on the run after he fled his presidential palace. the ukrainian parliament stepped him intent to appoint an acting prime minister and remaining provisional government. it seems to be a major strategic set back for russia. some worried president putin may intervene in one way or another. president obama's national security advisor susan rice said the move would be a grave mistake. joining me now from washington
d.c. former ambassador to ukraine, john herbst. he served in the orange revolution, a series of protests in 2004 and 2005. iam bremmer is the president of the eurasia group and consulting firm, charles kupchan is a professor of international relations at georgetown university and a senior fellow at the council on foreign relations. and fiona hill, the director of the center on the united states and europe and senior fellow at the brookings institution. i am pleased to have all of them on this program at this critical moment. fiona hill i begin with you and i have three questions and i would like for each of you to sort of get to it. where are we right now, how did we get there and where are we going and what are the risks in terms of where we're going. start with in fact a sense of why did this happen now and what is the moment that we're at now and then where are we going. >> well the precipitous events for the series of protests that
have led us to this situation where yanukovych is now has essentially fled and resigned being president of ukraine was checkered off by a summit for the european union. ukraine was scheduled, this is the end of november and the capital where ukraine was scheduled to sign an agreement with the eu the association and joining a free trade area. yanukovych decided not to sign it. he said this to his europeans and a series of protests broke out in the heart of kiev but over time really morphed into these huge scale demonstrations we saw. from being a protest against yanukovych's decision to essentially protest against his rule and against the whole system of governance in ukraine itself. so all the focus has been on
these protests in the independent square in kiev. then over time yanukovych feeling under pressure by the participants of these proit pr- protests started to use force. there's a decision to use force which has triggered off the series of events that led to international intervention and removal of yanukovych in the wake of an agreement being broken by three european foreign ministers, the intersessions of the united states and the dispatching of a russian envoy to try to put ukraine into a peaceful resolution. although the protest movements, to try to essentially address many of the protesters grievances about the system of governance to look for a way of rebalancing the power between the president and the parliament. where we are now, however, is in a period of great uncertainty. the agreement that was broken a couple days ago has fallen apart by the protest continuing.
and the opposition and the parliament stepping back from this. now we have an interim. we have a system of government that is under work in progress and we're all now trying to decide what the next steps are both for people in the ukraine themselves and also interested parties like the russians who have been very unhappy by the turn of events. >> rose: let's start with the russians. what might they do? >> well, there are a lot of things the russians might do. i would say first of all that
former prime ministers or former presidents or all the collection of people who want some voice in this. >> well, you have a large cod rea of people in the opposition with experience in the government who could competently run the country. the question is whether or not the demonstrators are going to be satisfied with the cadre i'm talking about. the demonstrators seem to understand that overall, there's a corrupt political culture in the country. it's not just corrupt on the part of the party in the region or yanukovych's party -- spent the last two years of ukraine famous political promiser when she was released from jail, was booed by the demonstrators. quoted in the new york sometimes saying she's nothing but putin in a skirt, a psychological analysis actually. i don't want to overstate that. >> rose: it's not a good visual. iam what about europe.
what impact can the european union or the united states have on the events on the ground in ukraine. >> the question first of all how much support they're going to give the ukraineians. the ukraineians need two things a government which is functional which they don't have but they desperately need money which yanukovych thought he had $15 billion committed by putin but only 3 billion made it to the coffers. another billion coming but then with the crack down that was failed during the olympics, that money is no longer there and the russian government happens said okay guys, well you can fine that two billion from somebody else, how about the imf. the imf under political pressure from the europe means without which the ukraineians will default the imf has to see a government that actually works in ukraine. that government probably needs to include not just folks that are going to be acceptable to the demonstrators but a also the
technocrat who has capability who are pretty corrupt and some come from yanukovych's former supporters on the parties of the regions. the americans and europeans have to do a couple things. they have to facilitate, use the lever of that cash from the imf and try to facilitate a workable outcome that is going to make the ukrainian demonstrators hold their nose somewhat in terms election. they also have to make the russians not feel like complete losers here because as fiona said, the russians do believe right now that they've lost tactically. but they're not intending to stay that way. if the americans and the europeans are going to basically say great viva democracy go for the opposition and we don't care about yanukovych's former party, the russians have the economic leverage long term. they're the ones that can cut off trade that can crush the ukrainian all gawrks. clearly if putin doesn't want to use leverage to create the
support's successionism, he can use those financial lievers over the median term to make the ukraineians the losers here. >> rose: what's the possibility of civil war? >> i think it's low in the near term the news has call out crie yeah. they basically forced the town council to get rid of their mayor and accept instead a russian citizen as their mayor. they actually flew some russian flag. that clearly shows their disposition. the crimean have no interest in being part of ukraine. if the russians want to stir up trouble that's where they can do it. i don't think the russians are going to push that for two reasons. if they push for civil war you're going to have a
republican of western ukraine that's going to want to join nato imminently and that's not in putin's interest. and also russia makes a lot of money at transing energy through ukraine through europe. if they can't continue to do that, that under mines the russians too. i don't think putin, he might accept a tactical loss but he's going to use his power to push the disposition of ukraine to move much closer to russia than it looks today. that's not civil war but that clearly is a heightened possibility of economic default for the ukrainian nation. the long term that doesn't look very good. >> rose: charles kupchan. >> it's a long time before we get the functionality. one is the current status quo going to hold. i think it's nothing short of remarkable that the entire state apparatus ditched yanukovych. on friday i think many of us
worried about civil war, that the government would rally behind the president, the opposition would be in the streets. that's not what happened. you had the police, the army, the interior ministry, the bureaucracy essentially flew including the party of region, yanukovych's own party now calling him a criminal and a crook. >> rose: clearly that wasn't a strategic of putin as he accumulated power during the term of his presidency to restore the grandeur of russia as he possibly could. but the question is can he be stopped and without the west being able to come forward from germany and from other places with significant amount of money and guarantees because of the dealt and the maintenance of the government. >> it's a critical question. and part of it is going to come down to dollars, to rubles, to whether the imf, the u.s. and the eu can come up and sweeten
the pot. i think there's no question that they will sweeten the pot, the question is how much. and we know that because of the euro zone crises in the eu, because of the debt crises in the united states, nobody wants to get out a checkbook. there's enough trouble getting the german taxpayer to agree to bail out greece, not to talk about ukraine. there certainly is a high hurdle here. but i do think it's not just about the money and the gas. it is also about a deeper question of moral purpose, of orienting the country. and right now ukraine is looking west and that's a slap in the face to putin. >> rose: so how much -- >> it is a slap. >> rose: go ahead iam. >> it is a slap in the face but the reason i don't think it's strategic it's not played out yet. it could be become a strategic cross. i think the concern here is it's not in america's interest or european's interest to have the russians feel like this is a
strategic loss. because of the power they have in ukraine. it's in our russians have a slow incremental decline but not realizing they're are in decline. it's really hard giving outcomes on the ground that being the case. >> this analysis is much too gloomy. russia has serious influence in ukraine but ukraine has substantially influence to withstand russian efforts to control. for example those pipelines that go through ukraine are the principal money earner for ukraine in europe. just as the russians can stop gas to ukraine, ukraines can stop gas going to europe. they didn't pay attention. they managed to deal with russia blackmail. the problem is one internal problem and the fact that the party of the region did not rally to yanukovych that the party the region understands that their future lies in ukraine looks west. there are very few oligarchs in
ukraine that want the social economic relations. they realize the eurasian is a place to the past. a also for the russians too but putin doesn't know that. ukraine has the wherewithal to stand up to russian pressure. >> rose: what percentage of the population do you think believes what you just said? is it 60% or 70%. >> a clear majority, 55%. along with the oligarchs it's closer to 90 percent. if they are closely to russia the oligarchs will eat them. they have influence in the kremlin, they are the kremlin where they have no such influence. that's why you see no rallying to yanukovych. >> rose: tell me what possibility there exists for some kind of western agreement with russia to avoid the crises or to figure out a way that works in the best interest of
ukraine and best interest of the people both east and west in ukraine. >> the fact is that a lot of the so-called ukrainian nationalists elite or the opposition actually feel more comfortable in russia than they do ukrainian. you got basically an identity that doesn't necessarily follow linguistic lines. russians play this all the time. putin always says for example that are 17 million russians in ukraine which isn't true but he says that deliberately. he says that to forge that link. so they're thinking they control ukraine. so we should not rule out that the russians are already trying to figure out behind the scenes how they reach out while we're maneuvering what's going to happen that the russians are having their own discussions with the opposition behind the scenes and figuring out their next play. we have to be careful. this is about ukraineians figuring it out themselves and
not us figuring out how it will play in the longer term. >> i think fiona made an important point about the deep cultural and identity differences between east and west. i think one of the message that we need to send to whatever government ends up in office is don't make this an either/or choice. don't make this either we're european or we're pro russian because you have to fudge that. going back to the polish empire -- that sat on western ukraine they're just very different in their language, their culture, their outlook in the east. and any government has to recognize that and build an inclusive tent. otherwise it's not going to work. >> it's great to talk about the fact that we are all ukraineians and the future of ukraines and i love that as ann analytic trop. whatever government the ukrainians choose where the money comes from is not about
ukraines but it's about the russians and america. if they pay attention to ukraines and cut them a deal we wouldn't have gotten here. the fact is the european were focused on their own crises and made it really difficult for the ukrainian difficult to balance between europe and russia. the willingness to bail them out is much less than putin writing from the pension fund. >> rose: i have to leave it there. thank you iam bremmer, john herbst, chawls comian and fiona hill. >> our participation in the alliance for affordable internet and just to name a few examples. i also recognize the challenges that come with the connecting world. google has sort of done this and thank you to the google idea for doing this, i'm really greatful for you guys to participate.
>> rose: google chairman eric schmidt and jared cohen is here. they solve pressing global problems. the grants are funded through a $1 million donation by eric schmidt. it grew out of the book the new diligencal age, transforming nations, businesses and lives. the book come out in paperback next week. i'm pleased to have eric schmidt and jared cohen back at this table. welcome. >> thank you charlie. >> rose: let me start with this. what's new in the after word that's not in the book and what are you saying today. >> the biggest thing that happened is the first book has been so many revolutions, the disclosure from snowden and the crises that governments are facing with the empowerment of individuals. we think that a lot of this was anticipated in the book, you judge. the important thing is the technology revolution is real and the empowerment of citizens has a lot of implications. >> rose: i want to talk about both of those things. if i'm a citizen in war and in
peace but also you suggest in here we haven't seen nothing yet when we think about how important the internet would be in medicine and education. let's just go back one more time. >> i'll start with education and eric can talk very compellingly about medicine. but you asked the question what's new. what's new is the vast majority of the world's children have historically learned through rote memorization and access to mobile devices and connectivity will change the game and arm them with a device that will allow them to fight rote memorization with critical thinking. >> when you been go to the doctor today, you're given an average, you know, this kind of male or female, this age group and so forth. wouldn't you rather have individualized medicine where they take a sequence of your skin or have you and sequence it and know precisely what drug will fix the probable. that's possible within a few years. >> rose: you thank you about genomics and medicine. when we talk about the potential
about what is available for human kind, how far off is the kind of personalized medicine that will make a difference and enough data available so that we really know what our risks are and how we can address those risks. >> it's happening now and i think in five years it will be pretty universal among the developed world. it takes that long because we have to get the data. we actually have to do the sequences. genetic sequencing is falling in cost from a thousand dollars to $100 over the next few years. that will mean when you go to the doctor the sequences will be done on you right then and there. again with your permission and that information will be stored to help figure out what your problems are. the other thing that's happening, a lot of start ups that are now using phones for normal monitoring. basically transdermal monitoring of one kind or another to literally get to the point where it can say something changed in your body i'm calling the doctor for you. >> rose: the whole world of sensors is changing dramatically. speak to that. >> this is a big question that we think is going to define the
future which is what happens to autocracies. we're struck on a trip to north korea. it's the last personality, totalitarian society left. despite the north korea the dire situation let's a silver lining that's more optimistic which there will never be a cultured society because of the internet. the internet is going to eliminate it in the same way we're able to eliminate smallpox because that absence of doubt will no longer be possible. >> rose: that's different from brazil in what way. >> in terms of surveillance. the british accept for whatever reasons universal video taping of everything that they're doing on the streets. that wouldn't fly here in america. and certainly not, in germany they already that. >> rose: how many requests from the government for information and how it handles it today.
>> it was illegal for us to answer your question until recently and the government made a change where we can say we get less than 10,000 such requests over a year. and so it's a very small number. and we do them only when they're lawful and they're really about terrorists. so it's not in fact a big number compared to what we normally do. the other aspect of course the government was the nsa activities with respect to surveillance of google. we changed our system. >> rose: how were they suravailable you. looking from server to server. >> there was a program called prism used, a serious of information that came from the british secret service called gchq. according to the snowden documents they figured how the a way to get between our computer system as they traffic information. we have no evidence that information was misused. when we are saw our protocols we immediately closed those doors. >> rose: on this program we will be looking at ukraine today and talk talking about that.
we have something called the square talking about egypt. what do we know about ukraine and the impact of the internet and social media. >> it's interesting. comparing ukraine with the georgia crises in august of 2008. in georgia more people died. there was more violence and it lasted longer yet so many more people have paid attention to ukraine. if you ask the question why and what's different. social media has shined a spotlight on ukraine that didn't previously exist. now it's also interesting is yanukovych lost a lot of his support base after revelations about what he was doing came out. he tried to shut down the opposition channel, channel 5 and all it did was give people an additional grievance to talk about on social media. so as soon as yanukovych lost the information environment, he began to bleed supporters. when he bled supporters, he started to seen acceleration of
the opposition. >> so the media's focused i kri correctly on the terrible and tragic death on roughly 78 people in tahrir square but the real story was the lost of political support by virtue of being connected to the internet. >> rose: let me talk about this whole new prize that you're offering. explain that to me because this whole book is how the internet can solve global problems and how it's a factor and then you come forward with this million dollar project. >> that literally puts my money why my mouth is. >> rose: this is your money. >> yes. this is a personal donation. google is doing thing in this area and many others are as well. it's important. there's a series of problems, right, empowerment of individuals, anti-censorship. the technology can make those worse or better. we want and i personally want to fund the people trying to make those problems better. better for citizens. there are plenty of heros in this we want to find them all.
>> rose: it's interesting. when you look at africa for example how the internet is used in such positive ways in terms of farmers, in terms of people seeking small loans, a whole range of ways that give them access to both data and services they would not have had otherwise. >> africa has been penetrated in terms of internet access but it's the fastest growing global market in the world. people will skip connecting to the internet with a personal computer and come on-line for the first time on the go with a mobile device. >> as part of our tour we went to 40 different countries and we spent a week. >> rose: are you talking about this book. >> no. you write a book -- did you get it right or not. there are roughly 600 million people in africa on mobile phones. that is tremendous resource for communication and empowerment. when they use wi-fi it will
change their governance. they'll say we're mad as health. we don't want this government that's taking all my money and all my minerals. i want a proper government. rule of law. i want something better. >> rose: people find out they're not alone. >> that's right. >> rose: other people feeling the same thing. >> so imagine for example the terrible cases of what's going on in the congo and the conflicts there and all of these things. finally the people who are being victimized will have a voice, you'll see it and hear it. it will reduce deaths and crimes in this area. >> rose: power in numbers. >> yes. >> rose: what percentage in the population of 7 billion are in fact connected to the internet. >> depends what number you use. rough numbers is 3.7 billion people using phones. there are 6 billion phone numbers. there's roughlyjww 2.3 or 2.4 billion using the internet and a number of people using the kinds of phones we use is around a billion and-a-half. these numbers are large and fastest growing part of the
computer industry. they far outpacing personal computers and things like that. indeed tablets are beginning to replace personal computers for all sorts of reasons. this mobile relying is changing the face of computing and the way people interact. the other thing to know is there's a series of price points. there are $100 an -- android phones alternative to the iphone. there are companies in china -- >> rose: there are a variety of phones. >> and many phones. and they are likely to get to $70, $50 and eventually to $30. at those prices, the destitute will in fact use them. they'll use them to get the basics. clean water, education for their children and safety for themselves. >> rose: how many countries in the world try to restrict the internet. >> one out of every three people on earth live in a society that's severely sensorred. two thirds on -- >> rose: one out of every three. and clearly china's part of that. >> china's a big part of that.
yukon and iran. >> there are roughly 44 countries by google's count that restrict the internet in a number of forms. there's a number of countries getting significantly worse. turk key has mate identify worse by a series of laws pass the to make it impossible to have internet traffic and the government can ban anything. the recent laws in russia have under the guise of childhood protection are written in a broad way and could influence political speech. in china the prime minister, the president mr. xi passed a law six months ago that criminalizes the speech, if you will, of more than 5,000 bloggers. not only are a large number of people but it's getting worse in these countries. >> sudan shut down the internet recently. >> rose: they got the satellite. >> there's a serious of people working on satellite strategies for this but there are so many ways in which the government can
shape this. we believe i think it's fair to say that in the next decade technologists who are opposed to the censorship will find ways for governments to completely eliminate. >> rose: i want to take you back to the conference in 2011. you know where i'm going. what you said is essentially there are four horsemen driving rote and innovation in the 1990's. it was microsoft and cisco. today there's google, schmidt puts it google of course, apple, amazon and facebook. that was 2011. what would you change about that. >> it's still true. it's interesting if you do the analysis in terms of platforms, shareholder value, reach, size of companies. those four continue. if you go through apple's had a tremendous run even with the tragic loss of steve. if you look at amazon, defining and redefining commerce not just in the u.s. but globally.
>> rose: advertising revenue. >> and showing that mobile is very real and of course google had a few good years here under larry's leadership. i think the four are there. it's clear microsoft has to redo it. they have a new ceo. there are other candidates, twitter attempting to become a plat form, netflix and so forth. >> rose: what does microsoft have to do. >> the problem microsoft has is their model was organized essentially a monopoly windows position and monopoly office position broadly used in platforms they don't sell. so for exam8lk this week in mobile world congress, nokia is busy announcing a android base phone. shocking. interesting example of the power of open systems and open source. >> rose: but there's also this. you have acknowledged that google missed social media. microsoft missed social media, tablets and a number of other things. how does someone as smart and as
savvy as google miss a social media. >> i took responsibility for that. >> rose: a ceo should do that. >> absolutely. but we were busy. we were doing chrome, number one browser. you should use it all the time. android, number one mobile platform. tremendous improvements in advertising and search, maps and so forth and so on. we were unable to do that one part. we had a period we were missing that. >> rose: are you happy with your market value. >> i think our company is happy and shareholders are happy. google and google plus which is our entry in the last two years continues to do extremely well. if you for example take a look at google plus hangouts, phenomenal. there are many reasons. >> rose: it's interesting to talk about this. basically what you said about the gang of four is that they will be competing with each other in a variety of ways. >> that competition by the way has benefited consumers enormously. the fight between apple and google over operating systems is
producing enormous reductions in the prices of phones. if google was not there those iphones would be more expensive. it's enhanced -- >> rose: and google -- >> take a look at amazon. they have restructured marketing. they control 40-50% of on-line market. >> rose: they control 40-50% of the on-line market. >> depending on what estimates. amazon is the world's leader now hosting platform services with google as the challenger. >> rose: many believe the bigger revenue generated than restale. >> web services is their primary profit. >> rose: facebook announced, there was an interview with mark zuckerberg about what's up app. $16 billion. it's been reported that you were in the bidding and it was 10 billion up to and you guys for the facebook got it. and mark is saying this is the
most exciting venture they could possibly have. it's going to be up to a billion dollars, a billion people using it. >> today the estimates are there are more than 400 million users. it's a way of bypassing the s and f charges. it's primarily used outside the united states and it's an important network that they acquired, right. the question of valuation which ever accepts is really a question what do they do with it. if i handed you a 400 million unit network, how much money could you make from it. depending on how well they execute they could make a lot of money or not. if they make no money it's a bad deal. if they make a lot of money it's a good deal. >> rose: what about yahoo. they're not on your list. >> yahoo has an excellent ceo who you know very very well. >> rose: why aren't they in
the mix. >> they have to define the platform strategy. >> rose: is there one winner or a shared bonanza. >> i hope that the market never goes back to the microsoft dominance that i lived through 20 years ago. it's bad for competition. i fought it very hard. i'm very very proud that there are four extremely well run companies that i'm identifying. i want there to be more. i think we all benefit. >> rose: my question was will one emerge. >> unlikely. >> rose: because of market factors. >> unlikely and the reason is the way the internet works. microsoft dominance was possible because the distribution was so limited. it was limited to the way pc's were sold. today there's so many ways getting your product out that a new entrance can do a phenomenal job and no one notices and all of a sudden oh my god. >> rose: the mobile. >> instagram was only on mobile. that was facebook's acquisition. >> rose: that's pretty good. >> we'll see -- >> rose: is that your primary
challenger. >> facebook continues to do very very well. they're well run and they have quite a few people we know. >> rose: engineering is crucial isn't it. >> of course. but this is all about inventing the future. and google and i think these other companies as well, we are working very very hard to investment thing that people really want, even if they don't know they need it. all of a sudden they discover. >> rose: because we're talking, jump in on in. there's google glass. how is that doing. >> very well. it's beta. it's interesting -- >> rose: introduce it right here, sitting right where you are. >> he's absolutely brilliant. we're always criticized how we behave. with google glass. we didn't throw it over the line. we said there are appropriate uses for this and there are inappropriate uses for it. we're seeing how the market responds. >> rose: so here you are, you come to this company from a different kind of background. what is it that excites you the most about all of these
companies and the possibilities of what they can do. >> i think, remember i come in terms of -- >> rose: what it means to be human. >> i come from the geo political year. i spent four years at the state dent before coming to google. i had a realization towards the end of my government tenure that foreign policy was a fancy way to stay troubleshooting. we're always troubleshooting some kind of challenge. when you think about it in terms of troubleshooting, technology gets illustrated as a critical piece that's missing. to me what's new about working on very similar challenges now at google is being the engineers. they look at geo political problems through a totally different lens. >> what if you had engineers in the state department. >> you could have built solutions to the problems. >> rose: there are engineers at the pentagon. >> eric's a computer scientist. when we travel the world together and we sit in this foreign ministry or that foreign ministry he asks very computer science questions. it leads to a totally different conversation. >> rose: explain that to me.
what computer science questions. >> an example, we were talking to some people what to do in syria. it occurred to eric that nobody in the midst how far talking about what should be done or this should be done or we should do that ever again georgia to look at how much things cost, how things would work. >> the new story in syria let's get the right people mobile phones and it get the wrong people mobile phones that have the wrong stuff in it. >> rose: can you go to any country in the world and find people of like mind in terms of who is beginning to understand and grapple with the possibility, even if it's in central republic of africa. >> one of the things that's interesting leaving the foreign policy world and coming to google is with the exception of isolated traffic police in north korea ever in the world has heard of google and heard of the internet and wants to talk about that. so technology is a too many but it's also a culture. it's the lowest commune denominator. >> we were in north cree jared
was obsessed with internet. >> rose: they have instagram and everything else. >> they didn't realize because they didn't have access. in the case of tunisia we met with the bloggers who helped overthrow the dictator at the time. what are they doing now. they are android developers. jared suggested that nigeria should have these foreign eye scammers trying to get your money through these illegal scams. that should be the basis for the new software development environment. >> since we're talking about syria before, i was in lebanon on the syrian border and i saw syrian friends of mine i hadn't seen in a long time. they told me stories about these check points where they are asking for your phone. they're going on your profile. they're seeing who posted things on your page or your wall. depending on what they find they'll arrest you or they'll shoot you. this is a totally new, we're used to dissonance and activists being caught in the cross fire. these are every day citizens
just basically trying to stay alive. >> your identity is now defined but who sent you a message. >> rose: who is my question. silicon valley as a community and as a culture, much has been said bit. it's home for engineers and computer scientists. and is it though more than that a methodology for thinking in silicon valley. you come from a rhodes scholarship to government. everybody who comes here as a visiting head of state most recently the president of france. they go to washington and they go to silicon valley. that's where they go. >> exactly. >> rose: what is it they want. how do we build a silicon valley in our country. >> first, every government that i've spoken with would like to replicate silicon valley. >> rose: china and russia both. >> it's difficult to replicate the american model because they have to fix their university systems and their regulatory systems. but nevertheless they have the human capital to do it but they
may not have the regulatory incumbent see. you have to allow for venture capital. you can't imprison people who fail after mistake. let me tell you why i think it's ultimately the most important conversation. these countries are not growing and they're not generating jobs. the way you create jobs is by creating new companies, new entrepreneurs, new ideas. the silicon valley model is one. the important point is every country needs this because they have to solve the problem with joblessness. >> rose: look at our country. you're an advisor to the president. you're on more and more of these committees. how come we're not able to do more in job creations with all that iq power in the united states. >> the american political system as you know is designed to not make much progress. >> rose: checks and balances. >> however you want to call it. there are very few laws being passed on anything. so at the moment the government is sort of stuck.
entrepreneurs and business leaders and other people are trying to move this in order by creating companies and new ideas and invest in them. i think that's going to be our future. >> rose: if we do and when. >> we're doing it as fast as we know how. >> rose: as fast as we know how. here's the other question. are you creating jobs. how many people work for what app. >> very small number. >> rose: 58 would be exactly right. 58 people. it's a $16 billion company now, okay. >> they have very valuable employees. >> rose: they certainly are. but i mean are we, is that meaning less jobs and therefore we have to have a dramatic change in terms of the way we educate. and even what we look for in the people we hire. >> i agree with that premise. and firstly, the question productivity, a lot of people think the productivity measures are mathematically wrong because of human error. the reality is automation is
replacing certain kinds of repetitive jobs. cars are now built by robots instead of humans. there are fewer jobs. they have jobs but in service jobs that pay less. this is a problem. it's been going on in manufacturing for a long time. it's not a new problem. i'm concerned this is going to accelerate in the next five to ten years. computers are getting smarter and smarter and could affect the general knowledge workers. the jobs that are created are by gazelles fast moving companies identified by the kinds of questions you asked about companies like silicon valley. the best solutions we've come up with and there's a big project internally is fixing education, fixing entrepreneurship so we have people coming in. more use of information and essentially the internet in one form or another. and creating areas where people can be disruptive. if there's a law that does not allow what an entrepreneur is doing, that entrepreneur can do it in other countries. >> rose: what app did not come from google, it came from
two guys literally in a garage. >> by the way that story's going to be released. i would love if that idea was repeated in every city in america and every city in europe and japan. >> rose: which brings me to this question for both of you. this idea of how america is wired. google fiber is out there with a select number of cities coming in with highly huge high speed internet service. you got comcast buying in the future to get through the regulations, regulatory environment buying time/warner and all because they want to have a broadband capacity. they want to have the pipes. what's the impact of all of this with increasingly video as an important part of what the internet's about. >> i think we want to have as much competition as we can in the infrastructure. we may not have enough. so the concerns of our time/warner and time/warner cable and comcast are really about who is the competitor.
google fiber is now present in four cities. we want as much competition as possible as we've seen -- >> rose: how does google fiber work. i think ashland is one of the cities. >> one of the ones being considered. >> rose: being considered. >> the simple answer is that fiber is run essentially to the pole or to the curb. and then for a small fee you pay to get it connected. if you want slow speed connectivity which is about five megabits we'll give it to you for free to seven years. most people pay the roughly equivalent internet connection and they get almost a true gigabit of speed both up and down. it is revolutionary for the people who have gotten it so far. >> rose: in terms of they've seen nothing like it and they love it. >> the speed is so much greater. >> rose: is there clamoring for this. >> yes, they are. >> rose: there. so you take this rhodes scholarship out there. what intrigues you about things
like artificial intelligence and robotics. >> in the book, we have a line that in the future of human beings and computers will split duties according to what they're both good. at human beings for judgment, emotion. computers for needle in a haystack problem. that being said we all want to automate certain parts of our lives and preserve other parts. there's no shortage of people out there looking at artificial intelligence. there are a lot of exciting places. you see our veterans coming back from iraq and afghanistan and the possibilities available to them in terms of functionality. there's a lot of exciting prospects but the good news is a lot of this is really in the distance future so there's lots of time to debate it because of course it's a reasonably controversy topic. >> rose: the velocity of change is pretty fast, is it not in terms of what we're learning and how fast we are to come to grips. it's a huge problem and we understand now and i have done two seasons on the brain and somehow being able to duplicate that is a huge task.
if you understand just what it takes to make your hand move up and down, the kind of things we're finding. >> people just bought a company that shows some interesting research. we're getting to the point where computers can begin to understand generic topics that you don't train them. so historically artificial intelligence was you would show the computer something and it would find other copies. we're now just beginning to be able to discover something that we didn't train the computer for. that's an important break through but it's also years away from being generally applicable. >> rose: so where are you going? i mean ten years from now will you still be -- >> yes. >> rose: yes. you better be. and you? what is your dream. >> i've always said that there's a set of issues that i care about. fighting for free expression and then empower people in the face of repressive regimes and several other thing. i believe right now google is the best place to do that. for the reasons we talked about before. for engineers, working with them
you can create them. that ability to create is part of what's so attractive about that. there's few places where creation is possible today. >> for both of us google reflects a value system of a free and open internet and the connectivity of the world which i've spent my whole life sort of working for technically in terms of products . and now at a political and legal level. the stakes here are huge, right. education, entertainment, huge markets. the freedoms of citizens. google is a perfect place. there are others as well to work on this i think for both of us. >> rose: you try not to do any evil will you. >> of course. >> if i can add one point to this. we're working in the text sector at such a critical and historic time in the sense that what eric mentioned before, 2.4 billion people on-line today and the next decade they're going to add another 5 billion. we're in a decade long transition where we go from a minority of the world population being on-line to the entire
population being on-line. and one you want a front row seat for this. two you want to be part of ensuring that new found connectivity is a good force for the world. >> what happens if the internet is broken by the evil governments doing the:÷dthing a. that would be a tragedy. that would be a real tragedy. and once it's broken -- >> rose: it has to do with structuring everything else in terms of the grid and so many other things. >> jared is working hard on this idea. >> rose: thank you jared. so what happens after the internet? >> the internet will eventually go away. >> rose: yes, i know. >> in the same sense that electricity went away. >> rose: it becomes a commodity. >> the only place you hear discussions about electricity is where it's unreliable like in pakistan or africa. we take it for granted. 80 years ago after the debate between ac and dc, this show would have been about electricity. >> rose: i say this, i did an
interview with jeff bezos and we talked about amazon being disruptive. and he said you know, i too, this company will be disruptive. one of the important things you make in this book too is the disruptiveness of the internet as its impact on business. >> absolutely. >> rose: you know. and you can never assume today will be forever. >> there's always another start up of brilliant people coming out of a major university. >> rose: that's america. thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks charlie. >> rose: the book's called the new digital age, transforming nations, businesses and our lives. thank you eric, thank you jared. when we come back, we'll take a look at a film called the square when politics met the internet in tahrir square in egypt. >> i'm not going to go and vote while my friends are being killed in the streets. i have friends who lost their eyes, i have friends who are in hospital in serious condition. i know people who have died. i'm not going to go and cast my vote in these circumstances.
>> rose: egypt interim cabinetry signed today after less than a year in power. the resignation came over the government's failure to fix the economy and anger over the poor performance. to understand the human story of the politics in egypt there is there an oscar nominated documentary called the square. it takes us inside the people's movement since demonstrators first took to the street demanding the removal of hosni mubarak. it is made by jehane noujaim. >> it came down to the streets in nationwide protest. >> this uprising defies any definitions. >> people are gathering in the largest demonstrations against president hosni mubarak. >> i want to tell you the regime
the following kqed production was produced in high definition. ♪ calories, calories, calories! >> wow, it rocked my world! >> it just kind of reminded me of boot camp. >> i don't know what you had, but what i had was great. >> it almost felt like country club food to me. >> don't touch. it's hot! >> i gotta tell you, you people are getting me all excited with all these dis