The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Jalisco, Mexico, from 5 to 9 December 2016. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: Good morning, everybody. Welcome. While we're waiting for other people to arrive, it makes sense to make best use of our time and just start. I'm aware people are not having awareness of time, but there's traffic in the city that sometimes keeps people down. No judgment here, and everybody who comes in later is welcome. For sure welcome to those people that contribute to the session. They have been carefully selected based on their involvement in the work and their earlier involve of the work of the Dynamic Coalition.
What you see is both from an industry perspective but also a government perspective, and I'm sure if the people in the room are also from the Civil Society perspective, we'll have a pretty good multi‑stakeholder approach of this thing that is developing so rapidly in our time.
The Internet of Things, so if I may move to the presentation. We can move to the presentation there. I've seen my head before in the mirror every morning. A very quick introduction, Internet of Things is something that bringing good things. We can't say skip because the challenges are too difficult or daunting, but we should take the challenges seriously as well, and we can see that in this world today, which is intensely used, it will be impossible to continue without good use of technologies.
At IGF I would want to point to the specific ‑‑ to the sustainable development goals. Many of them that deep require technology to help ranging from monitoring the environment to better crop management and also effort. There's many applications out there, and applications sometimes we just enjoy a FitBit or something on our wall that makes it even easier to see how much energy we use. On the other side, we also see that there are applications just being developed on a societal level like the tsunami buoy on the upper left. Wouldn't it be great if at least had a little bit more prewarning? Lo and behold, with technology we can do that.
So this is the need to ‑‑ also the need to get it right. Here at the IGF, we're talking about how IoT can be developed. It's an aspect of the Internet rather than something separate or different, but it has specific characteristics dealing with a lot of data and also anonymously or at least acted and based on triggers by censored data than even by machine learning and AI automatically taking charge of part of our environment obviously to our benefit if it all works well.
The Dynamic Coalition is set up in hydra back, and we aimed to develop a shared understanding across stakeholder groups with regards to this. There's a lot of meetings about IoT in the world all the time. We meet on the global level on equal terms. We have developed a good practice principle, and it's published on the website. It comes with mother just this paragraph, but basically it's about taking ethical considerations into account from the outset, and justify an ethical, sustainable way ahead in the support of creating a free, secure and enabling rights based environment, a future we want.
So what ethical is something that will never be ready with determining, but we are zooming in on making that clear as you will find in that paper. The current declaration focused at achieves reasonable trust through dividing together meaning transparency to users, user‑controlled data, education, security, privacy and a commitment from stakeholders to take this into account from the outset in whatever role they play in this environment.
The focus of today's session, because we won't talk only about the same things all the time, but it's that five points that have been spelled out on the agenda as well and that are asking the speakers to consider. First is the statement that the ethical approach should be from the Civil Society point of view and do‑able from the business point of view and sustainable from a technical point of view.
Some technical solutions have been set up in the past, that are not sustainable. Particularly in this field a lot of trials have been set out with batteries lost for a period. The batteries don't function anymore at time, so things like that. The second one, do we need the principle?
I'm using the most available technology possible. This was almost triggered by the fact we're on the global level and the level of access and technology isn't the same everywhere. Some of the services we made we'll be able to develop on GSM standards or whatever.
Why shouldn't we try to do that when we can? We have the high needs to raid IoT awareness from consumers. It's nice that people know what's possible and happening. People should not be expected to be technical experts. In many of our talks I say this goes for politicians, too.
Questions ‑‑ not a question. There's value at having ontology for IoT so we understand privacy, security and safety. If we get a clear picture there, it helps us to understand better what the challenging are and where the emphasis of addressing those needs to be. The last one is triggered by the DEM network from months ago, I think, where they're things that have computing power used to take down the Internet.
The interesting thing is a lot of information on this one is online, and yet I think it's a good trigger because it raises awareness at the right level that we should take this seriously. From that point I'd like to take it forward as well.
Having said that, there's many more questions for tomorrow that you can find on the website as well. The focus will be on these. It's up not my ambition that we're going to be exhaustive about all five subjects, but very much I would like you to focus on those subjects that you feel need to be addressed most and then in the first place I'm looked at the committed speakers, and after that I look at really involvement of all.
Wolfgang, may I ask you to ‑‑
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: The problem is you have a lot of interesting sessions, and then they're at about the same today and Megan Richards from the European Commission has a lot of activities also specifically in this field. Megan has been involved for many years as well in this discussion. Thank you for the dedication there. Since you have to be somewhere in ten minutes, share what you want to bring.
>> MEGAN RICHARDS: Thank you very much. I apologize for putting the agenda in disorder and jumping in front of Wolfgang. First of all, I wanted to say from a European Commission perspective, we have been very much involved in the research and innovation aspects of Internet of Things for a number of years, and also the commission launched something called the alliance of Internet of Things actors, I think. I forgot what the Los Angeles A stands for her.
It's a multi‑stakeholder group that brings together industry, government, and other interested actors to look at implications of Internet of Things. It covers a whole series of issues relate to the Internet of Things which includes ethics, standards, research activities and innovation and the way all the different actors work together. I just wanted to mention this.
Maarten knows about this very well. There are a number of members of the European parliament here, so they can give you also a perspective from citizens' points of view I'm sure. I apologize for jumping in, but I wanted to put that on the table and I will follow the discussions from a distance. Thanks again.
>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Thanks for actually coming and getting that said.
>> MODERATOR: Let me introduce him. He would be the moderator today.
>> Since we had a speaker speak, I figured I would thank the speaker. Wolfgang, if we can go to your talk.
>> WOLFGANG KLEINWAECHTER: I want to make some very brief introductory remarks, because I was involved from the very early beginning of this Dynamic Coalition, which was established in the year 2007. It was when Internet of Things was still an emerging issue. By the way, France was also involved, and he was a driver and, unfortunately, he passed away in 2009. We should remember his work he has done in preparing the field for the building of this Dynamic Coalition.
Today the Internet of Things is the Internet of everything, and so it's difficult also for this Dynamic Coalition to find its place. It's discussed everywhere and every time, and so we had to be smart and have a good meeting two years ago when we ‑‑ the leadership was handed over to Maarten, and I think since then we had tremendous progress by really finding out what this Dynamic Coalition can contribute to the debate.
There are a lot of IoT meetings and conferences. My observations are a lot of these meetings are one stakeholder meeting for the technical experts that discuss amongst themselves and government people discuss amongst themselves and business people, or they are isolated in the sectors.
We have people discussing smart cities. Transport people discuss it among themselves. The health people discuss among themselves, and I think this multi‑stakeholder platform is a multi‑sector platform pull people out of their silos and enable a dialogue.
I'm very happy that there's a general agreement that this will concentrate at least for the moment on the dimension, because you know, I remember when Madam Curie discovered this, and there was excitement. Fantastic. Nuclear energy now, and then people started to think about it. I remember the debate whether it's good or bad to have a nuclear bomb. Is there a good bomb? Is there a bad bomb? Is it good to kill a million people to save our lives or not?
I think these are fundamental, ethical questions related to research, and the group around Mr. Oppenheimer had a lot of issues to consider what is right and wrong. We are doing this with the interventions. In the Internet of Things we are moving on similar ‑‑ in a similar situation where we have freely to rethink how we can get all this channeled in a way that it's useful for the future of mankind, and therefore I think the ethical dimension is really important.
First, we have to know what are the implications, and then we can make decisions. So it's not to make quick decisions, though we don't fully understand the implications of all this new technologies, and I stop here just to hope that this discussion here in this year and the years ahead of us will help us to understand this complicated issue a little bit better. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Wolfgang. Very much appreciate your historical memory and for bringing that up. I also want to thank you because you are the one that basically brought this Dynamic Coalition back to life after it had sort of drifted into inactivity. So now I'd actually like to go ‑‑ so now I'd actually like to go back to the speaker order, and the first speaker we have is Karen Rose from the Internet Society. Please go ahead.
>> KAREN ROSE: Thanks a lot, everybody. I'm excited to be here. IoT is something I'm excited about. If we look out to the next five to ten years, this thing we call the Internet of things could really be a fundamental game changer, much more beyond the little interesting gadgets we talk about or even applications from improved health care to cities, agriculture, et cetera. If we really think about it, we are talking about the convergence between the Internet and the physical world.
Talking about what it really truly means in the future to live in a hyperconnected world where the Internet is connected to nearly everything around us. I think this could fundamentally change our relationship with the Internet. If you think about it now, erroneously but in many ways the Internet and the worldwide web people think they're synonymous because so much of our interaction with the Internet is with humans interacting actively with content one way or another.
If you think in the context of five to ten years of a hyperconnected world, our relationship with the Internet could fundamentally change to one in which our relationship is a passive interaction with the Internet, whether we drive in smart cities, whether it's coming into our homes. So I think really fundamental and as we said here, there's great opportunities.
I'm really excited about the potential for the future. There's also really great challenges as well. We saw what was mentioned some of the challenges coming to life particularly recently, can it seems this year.
The DINE attacks from unsecured IoT devices discussed. There was recently an attack in ‑‑ I'm going to pronounce and you can correct me. Lap Ron that, a town in Finland where there was an attack on building automation that precluded to be able to control the heat and cooling of this building, which if you're in Finland and it's the middle of winter and you can't control your heat, that's a potentially life‑threatening thing.
Also, the recent attack in San Francisco on the municipal rail system, which fare payment machines were down because of an attack. We start to see some of the challenging come to life here, and one of the things that's really different, I think, of a dimension of the challenges is once human lives and assets are at stake because of attacks in security, the stakes go up and governments want to react. In terms of privacy, we see people starting to second‑guess their relationship with the Internet, including with things like the Internet of Things.
So our vision and the excitement for what we think IoT can accomplish is not going to happen if people are turning away from the Internet or, you know, governments are reacting really strongly because of security issues and other concerns. So in terms of the statement on the ethical approach just thinking about this going back, I think the real key is about trust. Not only trust in terms of security, but about promoting trust in terms of the user perspective as well.
Are users going to trust the objects they're interacting with? This also if we frame it in terms of trust has a relationship with business as well, because from a business perspective IoT is not going to take off if people don't trust the Internet or trust these IoT objects and if governments don't truce the security of objects and big restrictions are put on innovation.
One of my suggestions would be that perhaps we really take a look at sort of a multidimensional aspect of trust whether we talk about the ethical approaches, because it's so fundamental to ensuring that this technology can flourish as well as us thinking about what kinds of practices need to be in place to promote that trust for all stakeholders involved.
I know my time is short. I have at least another minute. In terms of some practical approaches, I think, you know, one of the real challenges in this space is how to get practical about this whole range if we're really talking about a hyperconnected world.
That's really broad. Without becoming overly prescriptive, because the field is so dynamic. I think some practical principles and voluntary practical principles and best practices really need to be in place, and we really need to think about them.
Now, there's a lot of best practices that are being developed in different segments of this industry, so one of the keys here is how do we really avoid duplication like things like best practices and make sure they're spread and in a way that gets implemented. We can develop as many principles as we want or as many practices as we'd like, but if people don't actually use them and implement them, they're not much use. So thinking about how we sort of expand and actually get things implemented is important.
The other point, too, is it in terms of a stakeholder approach, we need to have more points of engagement and leverage, I think. We're a lot of Internet people in this room, if we think about the Internet of Things, right? We're a lot of Internet people. There's also a lot of the things out there putting this technology into the devices. The people that are making crock pots and coffeepots and, you know, you name it, right? Refrigerators, everything.
It's this interaction and how do we get the things people Moore into these conversations as well. Avery is moves me on here. Just in closing, to hit with one of the other questions that was raised about needs to raise awareness with citizens and consumer, this is absolutely essential, especially from a framework of trust, right? If people have to be technical experts in order to understand technology, the level of trust in the technology is going to be low so we need to think about ways to allow consumers to have more choice and more simple knowledge of the objects and technology that they're interacting with. So with that, I will close. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I did have one hand come up. Now, I wanted to hold all of the interactions until the end, but I'm concerned that you're leaving. So if it was like a clarification question on something that was said, please go ahead. If it's discussing a point, I'd like to ask you to wait until ‑‑
>> AUDIENCE: It's a point.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for that. The next person I have is Olga Cavelli, who has worked with the ITU WSIS project. Is that the right name for it? Please go ahead.
>> OLGA CAVELLI: Thank you, Avri. I'll stay until the end of session. Just to clarify my role here, I'm representing the IUT's study group Internet of Things and its application including smart cities and communities. I'm just a rapporteur of question six, which is about infrastructure for smart citizens and the communities. This is my role in the working group, but they asked me if I could give my perspective based on the studies that we are doing at my university with my students at the University of Buenos Aires and my working in the working group.
My group is in the Excellence Center from Uruguay where I do some work, academic work with them, and also they organize the south school of Internet governance. Just briefly the study group is organized into questions. I lost it. Here it is. So it's one part dedicated to Internet of Things and also smart cities and communities which is where I do my contributions at rapporteur of question 6.
This is a general question about research and emergent technologies including terminologies and definitions. The group started in October 2015, and it has been having meetings in Geneva and other places of the world. I would like to make some comments, especially from if I can from developing countries' perspective. I've been studying Internet of Things issues with my university and with my students, and we have written some papers. I would like to focus a little bit on the ethical aspects of the Internet of Things from a developing country perspective.
You know, especially in Latin America we have big, big cities, so we see an Internet of Things as an major element to improve. We see a major problem with traffic and distribution of water, electricity. So big, big cities are mostly in regions with developing countries, Mexico is a big city, Buenos Aires is a big city. Not every city has different types of public transportation. So it becomes very complicated.
So we see Internet of Things as an element to improve the lives of people leaving especially in big, urban areas which are mainly in developing countries. But we see it also it has to be do‑able and meaningful. Not all the applications may be relevant for developing countries.
Perhaps in the first stage of the development of this technology. That has to be taken into consideration and has to be good for businesses and good for the people for social aspects and also to improve questions because we have to develop our economies. What we have seen is very interesting applications in smart agriculture. This is not so much related with smart cities, but we see that a good use of some resources in the agriculture could enhance the productivity of several things that are being done in this area.
I was present in a very interesting seminar in Argentina last week, and we have seen many improvements in the use of water, for example.
Using it in relation with information from the weather, if it will rain, then you can use better the water. We can use some good experiences that are being helped and used in Malaysia and other countries. So we're trying to improve that.
What we have seen also in all this implementations of smart agriculture and cities is that the ones that are meaningful are organized or taken on by a group of different stakeholders and we see a lot of meaning in that. The national government and the universities have been the knowledge and the companies providing the technology and then the users, the agriculture people using that technology to enhance their production and also some people involved in the economy as a general issue for them.
So those examples we see success in the ‑‑ in a multi‑holistic perspective of implementing this project, and we see there in this multi‑holistic order of approach a good way to avoid capturing. We don't have that that you were approaching to us. So the environment is different.
>> MODERATOR: We talked about me walking the aisle there.
>> OLGA CAVELLI: It won't work. I'll stop here. Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, Olga. So the next speaker we have is Jari Arkko, who is from Ericsson and also chair of the IETF. Thank you. Please go ahead.
>> JARI ARKKO: Thank you. I do agree with the importance to find the ethical approach, and I agree with the need to educate users and the industry that needs education as well. Definitely, I agree with the need for proper security to capture devices. More of that in a second.
With regards to stimulating the use of the most available technologies possible, I'm not so totally sold on that yet. It's driven by need. This is another angle on this.
In this whole conference we have talked at length on connecting the people who are not connected yet, and that is, of course, very, very important. Much work remains, but it's not enough. There's much more that we need to do, and it's not just a matter of high‑speed broadband and a matter of quality and quantity. The opening Internet local content and the ability to do new services.
On the IoT front what about the fields and farms that require the devices that help people's health. Clearly we have lots to do in the developing world even when everybody is connected. If you connect the persons only.
But I wanted to get back to deeper technical things. I wanted to highlight two problems at the report have worked with this year. I'm ‑‑ I guess I'm quite happy about how we the whole world are building systems and standards and we have different devices that exist in the same networks.
Then those networks are useful for multiple purposes. That's very important. Unfortunately, we actually have a ways to go when it comes to it at the application level.
I want to buy a house with Microsoft light sensors, and I found out I can't plug in Apple light bulbs. More work is need. I think we discussed this a little bit. I'm not sure if it's there yet. This is where there's differences where it comes in, so that's a useful thing to do.
Second, we have seen recently that the problems into the devices are mounting and the situation is bad and not just about the devices themselves and then being miss used in their purpose, but also being hijacked to cause havoc somewhere else. Work is obviously needed here, and it will need to go into diverse topics inside that particular security issue. It's not just a technical thing.
It's also a policy thing, a legal thing, a liability thing. So I think that's a perfect thing for the IGF in general to do and also we could say some more in the Dynamic Coalition about that.
I guess finishing with a sort of perspective, I wonder if we need to write baseline RFC requirements, RFC that says you can't deploy devices with default passwords. That seems like a necessary statement to do at this point. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. It was a very short statement. Didn't have to do anything. Thanks a lot. We have moved from we need to trust to it's really difficult to have trust with a lot of work being done in between that's not necessarily helping. The next speaker is Vint Cerf.
>> VINT CERT: I will begin speaking to remind you if we have a big Internet of Things, it would be good to have a big address base. I want to focus on a couple of things, particularly safety. We had a discussion in the previous session talking about principles, and I took the view in the principles discussion that safety ought to be high on the list of things that the technical community attends to in the creation and operation of devices in this Internet of Things space.
Safety is a very broad term. You don't want the device itself to malfunction. You also don't want the device to be used for other purposes that create havoc to use an appropriate term. That gets back to what I would say is fundamentally access control. So I start from the view that the Internet as a network of networks is the kind of neutral platform on top of which we're going to attach or to which we will attach all these billions of devices.
The idea here is that we want the people who use the devices, the people who make the devices to be attentive to the safety of these things attached to this neutral communication system. In theory, we want every device to communicate with every other one. However, for the most part we would never want a device to be able to communicate with all of the devices. You want to constrain this and that's what the access control question is about.
The task here is not solely in the hands of the programmers and the producers of the equipment. The users themselves have some responsibility as well. Suppose, for example, that you chose to acquire a collection of devices, and for your convenience you decide to put no access control on them at all.
Well, you may be creating a hazard for other people, even though your devices may not harm you. They may be used to harm others. So in some sense there's a responsibility on the user side, which will not be exercised unless the users actually understand and appreciate what their responsibilities are and how they can execute them.
So it's really an amazingly broad area in which to opine, because many different parties have some responsibility to achieve the outcome, which is a safe Internet of Things environment.
Actually, I think I want to stop there. I realize I have more time, but I'd much rather get into interactive discussions than just preaching at you, which is what Internet evangelists tend to do. So I'll stop there.
>> MODERATOR: Probably should have sat somewhere else.
>> We can still pull the tables apart.
>> MODERATOR: And have me walk back and forth. Thank you for mentioning the user responsibility. One of the things that comes up is then again ask a question for later is it really possible to make sure in the Internet of Things everyone will actually know what they're supposed to do, but I'll leave that on the table for now because that informed consent and informed user is a very difficult concept. Next we have Grace Abuhamed from NTIA who will make a comment.
>> GRACE ABUHAMED: Many are familiar with NTIA, but those that aren't we're the executive branch agency in the U.S. government primarily responsible for advising the president on telecommunications and information policy issues. Like many of us have said already in this session, we ‑‑ the department of commerce has recognized Internet of Things as an emerging technology trend, but we recognize it's not necessarily have different from the Internet or from the policy issues we face with the Internet today.
We're excited about the opportunities. We're also aware of the challenges. We recognize that there's a difference here with the scope and the scale of the effects that a policy could have on the Internet of Things, so we take the question of the policy issues very seriously. One of the things we've done to do this is we've launched a request for comments in the spring.
We received 130 comments, many of you in the room did submit comments, so thank you. We're assessing the comments, and part of what we're doing with the feedback we received is we're looking at the ‑‑ what our stakeholder community wants us to do in terms of Internet policy and assessing role of the government in the Internet of Things.
We held a workshop in September to further discuss some questions raise in the comments, and we're going to be issues a paper, policy paper at the end of the year. So it's coming shortly.
That will kind of focus on the technical aspects, the potential role of government and benefits and challenges that we see that we collected from stakeholders. Another thing that we've started working on is NTIA believes in the multi-stakeholder model and take it seriously. We launched the sixth multi‑stakeholder process. In one in particular is focused on IoT patchability and device.
We were given confidence this was the right topic mainly because in 2015 we launched a request for comments on cyber security issues and asked people what they would like to see ‑‑ what our community would like attention drawn to in the cyber security field, and we got the most response on IoT devices and in security. We've been really digging into that. The multi‑stakeholder process launched in October. They split into five subgroups and are working through the different issues. Like assistant secretary Strickland said yesterday, we believe very strongly that when you focus a multi‑stakeholder process on a specific issue, you get the best outcomes.
So this is what NTIA is doing and the department of commerce at‑large. We were very excited to work with our stakeholders around the world and in the United States to make sure that we get the policy questions right for the Internet of Things. So thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. And next we have Max Senges from Google.
>> MAX SENGES: Wonderful. Good morning. Thanks for inviting me. I thought I'd give a perspective from the private sector. I'm from how Google is thinking about the Internet of Things, thereby connecting with ethical questions that, in fact, myself and Vint Cerf are thinking about when we make a chapter we can discuss with the community when it's ready. Before I get to that, I wanted to reiterate the point we have education mentioned in the ethics paper, in the coalition paper already. Informed users is what we want, and the whole notion of a shared responsibility might be something that can be more explicitly addressed in the paper and teased out in order to hopefully encourage work in curating and thinking about the various responsibilities of the different stakeholders and how they come together.
To report a little bit from what we're thinking and discussing, at Google interoperability is clearly one of the key enablers for the Internet of Things. Jari pointed to the IAB workshop earlier this year. We started to work with a number of colleagues on extending ski mat.org, which is one of the most successful efforts to bring semantic interoperability to the worldwide web.
It makes sense to explore if we can build on top that rather than reinventing the wheel and finding another semantics base for IoT. Or the approach is not to say this is the standard, but to bring together a variety of schemas from the various stakeholders and see what is distilled on a level higher so we actually understand each other. You can have ‑‑ you can have a look at the initial information. The project just got started, but everybody is welcome to contribute.
Importantly interoperability doesn't only ‑‑ it's not a technical goal ‑‑ not only a technical goal. It has the goals to collect and connect the different devices and elements in the Internet of Things to create ensembles or capabilities that go beyond any individual devices. I think that's a very interesting environment, because it brings new responsibilities and complexities in the environments we see. The other element that Google has ‑‑ you've probably followed with launches like the assistant is very interested in is machine learning in the context of IoTs specifically.
How the learning is happening on devices in home environments or local cloud environments and then in the cloud. Again, I think there are interesting ethical questions that come with that that probably deserve a whole separate conversation but are also relevant in the context of IoT. Of course, privacy, security and safety is very high on our list of activities. We like to frame it as an opportunity for Google to show that we're actually a progressive player and helping to provide privacy solution for the space rather than causing the problem.
Again, anybody who was interested in that is welcome to come up and talk to me after the session and see how we can collaborate. Clearly, the assistant and machine learning provide a new surface, a new interface or IoT and other environments, and we think that might be a real important driver of IoT adoption and development. My personal work is in the research arm of Google, and I'd like to invite everybody to speak with me about collaborating on research and open innovation efforts both from the academic community as well as the private community, and if there's public/private partnerships or governments, we're interested to do R and D with them, too.
The last comment or proposal I wanted to bring to the coalition was to explore if we want to follow an approach that I've learned from the colleagues, professor Jim Fishkin from Stanford is here today. He developed a method called deliberative pulling. There are several elements of that. One in particular could be used for this emergent field of policy‑making, and that's the development of balance briefing materials.
In that approach you basically identify what the policy changes are, and then you list the different options and proposals. Almost like a Wikipedia article. What results is a neutral point of view description of what's going on. If we think that the issues that we're discussing should be in the briefing folders of a lot of stakeholders and policymakers, that might be a good way to ensure that the people are actually receiving balanced briefing materials and we'd like to discuss that with the group. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. And our last speaker before we get to open it to up to the whole room and those who are participating remotely is Joseph Alhadef from oracle and chairperson of ICC BASIS. Please.
>> JOSEPH ALHADEF: Thank you. I was going to focus on the issues and questions and I want to say Wolfgang you look marvelous from being around seen Marie Curie was finding radium. That was great. Sufficient and do‑able and sustainable is fine and no problem with it. It's missing a societal dimension to it.
The societal dimension is that ‑‑ this goes to the question of the maximum use of technology, and I agree with Jari maximum is not a good word to use. The question is, are we using technology to the maximum utility for the social benefit it can create? That's what's left off the table when you look at sufficient do‑able and sustainable, because that focuses just on the individual as opposed to the societal issue. The societal issue goes in many ways to the eco‑system concept. Not what does the sensor do, but what can you do with the information the sensor collected in order to create that societal benefit?
Whether it's in medicine or logistics and traffic management for a city, whether it's in urban planning, sustainable consumption. That's really a focus issue where there is a huge opportunity cost created by redundant risk. People don't do as much as they can, and the question is because often they're looking at what is a formula check box of what do I need to do to comply? And they don't understand how to put that risk in context.
Therefore, they don't use what they can in the technology that exists or the data that is available. So the question is, how do we get away from the check box not to in my way lower the standard but to make its implementation flexible and appropriate for the level of technology we're at. Something that was drafted even currently may not be able to keep up with the pace of change of technology. So that's one of the things that we need to think about.
We need to recognize there's an opportunity cost to not using these technologies, not that they should be used for the purpose of using technology itself. Using technology for the sake of technology is never a good idea. Using technology to accomplish useful end is.
The other thing Olga raised was the concept of what we mean. Occasionally we focus on high‑tech. In many developing countries there are low tech solutions that help food state of the and security. A sensor text based message and university's database might be all you need to dramatic improve agriculture or lives or schedule a bus route so someone who has a bus that comes once a week they aren't waiting two days because it doesn't come with regularity. That gets us to the education part.
There was a young man at the meeting we had, and he was ‑‑ he did not see himself in any of our conversation. It took creating an example of agriculture, we put sensors in the ground and we understand what the flow rate of the river is. We match it to weather patterns and look at the soil composition and use a local university to do an analysis.
All of a sudden a farmer gets a road map as to what is best grow and what might be most available in other markets and what he should think about growing. So that story allowed him to understand a utility that made sense to him. It's also important to have that kind of education for consumers.
It is impossible for them to understand risks when you talk to them about theory. They have to understand the risks and applications, and risks vary across applications. Understanding the contextual application including the benefit allows them to do some evaluation of the risk. That doesn't mean that the people that develop systems don't think about risk or address it.
You want a consumer to have some information based on which they can make decisions on what they use and how to use it. And understanding the contextual application both benefit and risk allows them to be better informed in making that decision.
The last thing I wanted to talk about is kind of the eco‑system issue, and we have to remember that a lot of sensors get connected through local area networks. That might be one of the places where we stress putting the intelligence. Yes, we'd like your Apple light bulb to talk to your Microsoft or Google Home, but we want to make sure that they can instructions from it.
You don't want the individual to have to go to every single device they own to program every single device for a preference. You'd like them to use a local area network with a smart house, and from an Oracle perspective when we think of a smart city, we think of a nervous system. We don't think of a bunch of connected sensors. We think of the back end connecting to the details and the decision‑making apparatus with it. So perhaps we can think about houses in that way, too.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'd like to thank all the speakers and especially for not only the great content but also for all keeping to time, which was really wonderful. I'd like to open up the discussion broader. I already had one person that I put on hold before, and then I'll start collecting names. A second one.
Okay. Then I see many. I'll try to catch them, bought yes. Okay. Thank you. So please go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE: It's working here?
>> MODERATOR: Yeah, that's working. Go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm from the European parliament, and thank you very much for your inspiring presentation. I think that some issues are very important. Three points. First is that we need to raise the awareness of the problem and disseminate those awareness. We need to have users with much more responsibility and deeper understanding of all problems related to Internet of Things.
This is very important in response to the common road between humans and learning machines. It will be completely new interactions, and we need to prepare people to cooperate with all of those devices, especially with artificial intelligence.
Secondly, I think that those ethical approaches are very important and we need to talk about security, safety and privacy but also to ensure that the model of choice is for consumers. We understand that now there is just about 1,000 devices which can communicate on the stroke of the middle. We will have devices that will be able to communicate among themselves, so it's a completely new situation for humans living among those devices.
The third point, the legislation. I think that we need to be very cautious on this idea of the Dynamic Coalition and give us the possibility to exchange and disseminate best practices much to overregulate this completely new approach and solutions. Rather we need to use the European parliament and Code of Conduct.
Invite all stakeholders to discuss how to use those new things, and not to start with the stronger and very strong regulation. The last point we will have the next meeting, so I'm very sorry we will need to go and move just before the end of the meeting. Thank you again.
>> MODERATOR: I'll come to you next. I have one person there with the microphone, and then I'll come to you. Is that okay to let the woman who needs to ‑‑ okay. Thank you. Please use the microphone and introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm not going to repeat what my colleague said and I don't have the time. I'm a member of the European parliament. Sorry.
I would like to insist in one idea that was around, which is consumers. I mean, they say in some sense this is a responsibility in the user side. I think it's nothing different from the physical world. We make a list of the kind of things that because we have the prerogative where it's secure for us where it's done in a mechanical way town. It's a routine way. It's two generations, and we had landing on that.
So I think it's a key point in order to have such trust we need. I mean, we can use this Beatles song "All You Need is Love."
All you need is trust from what we have here. This is very clear. The Internet of Things development, and in that context and (inaudible) and I think proactive users is absolutely a key point to get that. So I have to leave now.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Sorry I made you wait so long to get your comments in. Please. The gentleman in the back with the microphone. Please introduce yourself. I'm trying to do from side to side.
>> AUDIENCE: My name is Jeff Jaffrey. I just wanted to point out to folks that the WSIS is starting a new web of things working group. We call it the web of things not because it's different, but we look at the applications of IoT at the web level. Indeed, that group is trying to develop open standards for semantic inoperability. If people think it's important, pass the word around so we get a lot of involvement in that.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I noticed a lot of seats emptied up, so we only have one mic. We only have one microphone, so please pass that microphone down to here, and you can go ahead, yeah. It's a really hard to tell at this point because so many hands came up. You're at the table. Please go ahead. While the microphone is passed, can then.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm from the U.K. Firstly, Wolfgang is gone now. He did a great job in keeping this alive when is suffers from two early syndrome and they have a place to be ahead of the time. A number of things came to mind when I was listening to this, and the first for this and she said that now everything is connected to the Internet. That made me think that actually we were too Internet centric about thinking about this, which is actually about the people, which a lot of people said, which is good. I thought about the Internet of trust, but the trust in the Internet and the Internet of Things is vital to this.
I was wondering whether and how much accountability for every transaction that happens in realtime might help to adjust this. I wonder if we can discuss that at all. It's a possibility. And thirdly, lastly, I think when Jari was talking about the security of devices coming to the floor and the need to be able to ‑‑ and the other people talk about this patch and try it, that is vital.
That goes back to often because a number of things at the moment, for example, smart meters have been specified and the contracts have been let by governments and they have not actually thought about this and that's the lowest option is one of the requirements up until now. Maybe in the future after what happened recently it would be. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: We have someone with a microphone now, and then ‑‑ go ahead.
>> AUDIENCE: Jim Fishkin from Stanford University. I wanted to follow up on Max's comment. I think the Internet of Things over time is likely to transform life as we know it. That has many social implications. That will pose ethical dilemmas, trade‑offs, only some of which we can now anticipate. We cannot hope to have a positive impact on that just through general, ethical guidelines and principles. They're specific dilemmas posing trade‑offs. We practice what I call deliberative democracy where we Tehran Dom samples of a population, usually the public.
Sometimes as last year of the IGF. Other populations, multi-stakeholder populations, and the mass public. There ought to be a series of in my view, and I'm not just hawking my own line of work. There ought to be a series of representative and thoughtful consultations with the people who are going to have to live with this new world that is emerging in order to get their feedback in a thoughtful and representative way about some of these dilemmas.
I'm not sure the exact context, but I think there ought to be a conversation about that. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Would you please go next, because I had you on the list. Then I'll go over to the other side, and we'll get to as many people as we can in the minutes we have. Please.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm Julie and I work with the U.S. state department. What I hear in my work with other governments is an impulse to regulate and standardize on a worldwide basis the Internet of Things. So what I'm interested in from this community is what work have you done to ensure interoperability, and let the eco‑system evolve and innovate without that worldwide standardization approach.
>> MODERATOR: So what I'm going to do ‑‑ just so we have an idea, I'm going to go as many people to speak, and I'll come back to the panelists in the last 15 minutes. So that gives us another 15 minutes to collect comments from people.
I understand that we have a comment that was remote. Who was here next? You were.
>> AUDIENCE: Yes. Somebody sent me a message on messenger, and I love the Internet. This is from Tunisia who followed the discussion and she asks and anybody who wants to answer, what are the difference between policy priorities for the Global South as opposed to the north when it comes to the Internet of Things, and what are the primary I go regularities with bodies of government and in some cases historical abuse of personal data. Who is going to set the rules?
>> MODERATOR: I think it's an excellent question by the way.
Please introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: Hello. I'm a project manager in legal and policy research in new Delhi. We've been engaging in these policy processes and, in fact, the government only this year brought out a draft policy on the Internet of Things, which is really ambitious. On certain applications and in terms of climate change and manners of things really, but clearly lacking in any sort of government framework. This is important because we don't have a law, and we don't have a constitutional right to privacy if some people have their way.
In context my question is really to the gentleman from the industry from Google. In this context with jurisdictions and there is needed protection there are private sigh laws, and yet the Internet of Things continues to have these applications and continue to build these. Can you hope that these parties will engage proactively with these governments to ensure the data protection remains important and amicable?
>> MODERATOR: Would you like to go next? Please introduce yourself.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm from the Philippines, and I work for a technology consulting condition in the Philippines. I specialize in the area of human resources as it relates to technology. With the discussions it reminds me with the conversation with a client where the HR head said how do I use the Internet of Things to improve the wellness programs of my company?
They were talking about using things like FitBit and gathering data and how long you've been sitting if you've Donnie exercise the past week and using them to design the wellness programs. This amplifies two points today. First off is from the gentleman from oracle saying that maximizing the use of technology but not to look at the benefits to the individual but the bigger group.
Secondly, I think the conversations that we had amp fight the point whether it comes to the enter of things. It wasn't really the technology issues you grasped. The medical technology is huge in the Philippines. Most of the discussions revolve around the business and consumer, but some of us forget the users of the IoT goes to the smaller scale representations. That's what I wanted to share on this forum.
>> MODERATOR: Go ahead, please.
>> AUDIENCE: Hi. I'm Larry with connect faithfully.org and we're a Silicon Valley security nonprofit and NGO. I want to pit up on what Vint said about user responsibility. I don't know the name of the chair questioning whether or not we can educate people. And I think the answer is yes and no. The answer is yes, we can educate people and we can't assume in the near term we educate the entire population. If you look at the history and of the app world we lived in over the last 20 or so years, many attacks have to do with social engineering or simply human error or bad password management and things of that nature. I think the same is true with Internet of Things.
User education is important. I have pledged connectsafely.org to do all we can with others in the room to promote it for children and adults as well. I want to tell a story how I had to do research. I have a system that can open my garage door. The poor design of the app is if I put the phone in my pocket while the app is running, it's quite possible I will pocket dial the object garage door command. This has happened three times until I finally learned to always close the app before putting the phone in my pocket.
No, that's actually bad software design, but it is also user education, and there's a tremendous amount we have to learn as I at least close to what struggles with a home safer as opposed to less safe, and it's a little of both. I think Vint's proposal is absolutely essential and how they provide the good consumer education.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you.
>> AUDIENCE: Thank you. I'm from IP nick. I came from another workshop about the (indiscernible) called finding the Internet in the IoT. I think it should have been finding the IoT in the Internet. I normally referred to the so‑called IoT. I think it's damaging and risky to be referring to the IoT about being clear what it is or isn't, because it is not something that is identifiable or distinguishable or partitionable from the Internet. IoT might be awe Nye word for the Internet itself. In that case, it's fine. If we regulate the IoT, we try to do something that is a losing activity, I think.
We've been connecting things to the Internet for a very long time, and over the years they have become more numerous. They've become more importantly much more diverse in terms of the models and the manufacturers involved. But what we see today are really the same issues of software, security, device security that we have seen with laptops and operating systems and phones and apps and all sorts of devices over many, many years. Something is changing now is not just the numbers but the pressure on time to market, which is kind of a curse.
It has been for Microsoft if we remember some of the software releases over the years, but it also goes back to car manufacturing and all sorts of stuff. That's not new either.
We talk in the IoT about interoperability and rights and data protection and many things that we should recognize or at the application and usage layers in the Internet model. Of course, it's important to establish standards for those things gut again not to see them as new special needs of the so‑called IoT.
These are challenges that existed for many years, and organizations like W3C absolutely needs to be recognized for the work that they're doing and now collaborating and linking in with the IoT concept. They're working on payment systems and accessibility in media and encryption and things for many years. The risk of not seeing this is manufacturers want to become IoT companies and may not understand that they may need to become Internet companies before hand or at the same time.
They don't have to see themselves that way, but there are actually huge benefits in looking at what is going on before over many, many years of Internet evolution because there is an eco‑system they're entering and there needs to be a merger or Harmonization between the eco‑system and the existing manufacturing eco‑systems to make sure they can take advantage respectively of what's going on before. There's one important subset of the eco‑system, which is the security which itself is something that Internet companies need to understand and enter, you know, with eyes open seriously. The last workshop spoke about where we could see the multi-stakeholder aspects of the IoT.
I don't think we need to ask the question if we say it's an inseparable subset of the Internet itself. We all understand and agree these days I'm sure that the Internet is a multi-stakeholder eco‑system and we don't have to have a new argument to reinvent that wheel as a special move for the IoT. Thanks for that.
>> MODERATOR: On this side, I saw some hands before, but I don't know if I missed anybody. I managed to get people from that side to move to the table. So I wanted to make sure were there any hands while I'm up here? I'll get the microphone down to the in a bit unless you can get to the table, and then I'll have a couple of hands over there.
Okay. So excuse me. I probably did not duck under that properly. Anyway, one here and then there's two in the back there and then I return to the panel for some responses. Yes, I should have done that.
>> AUDIENCE: (Indiscernible). I wanted to address three things rapid fire. First one, we've discussed way too long Internet of Things without discussing in parallel the immersion of artificial intelligence in it in much greater depth.
Second, in being careful not to go against one of the architects of the Internet, but I would ‑‑ I'm worried if such a figure and Google itself would think that the responsibility for this thing should be on the consumer level. I think that, you know, it's like opening up the floodgates and, you know, saying that, you know, it's your responsibility to swim. I think this is such a huge thing opening up that the responsibility should be at a different level. Perhaps I misunderstood, but it set it. A few people have said it like that.
In view of that, I think somebody said the ICB basis gentleman mentions the concentrating on the long level. I would like to hear more about that, because I think creating like 3D intelligence on the Internet of Things at that level has some depth, and we should explore it more in this workshop. Thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I'm going to collect two more comments and go back to want panel. I think it's been an excellent set of comments.
>> AUDIENCE: I'm from women from disabilities in Australia. I come from a user group crying out for applications that can be used in the homes, small towns, open and closing occur tunes, doors and garage doors and whatever. They have been very expensive up until now for people with disabilities, very expensive. And this is an opportunity for people to actually use mainstream applications as they come in under smart housing, but there need to be ‑‑ they need to be accessible and they needed to be user friendly.
So I implore web designers and all sorts of application designers to consider making these applications user friendly and intuitive. Thanks.
>> MODERATOR: Was there another hand back here? No, there wasn't. So then I guess you get to be the last commenter, and then we move on back to our speakers.
>> SPEAKER: Thank you very much. I'm the chair of the Dynamic Coalition on values. Before Vint came over to you, he was in the room across the corridor and presented his proposal to us, and that brought lively discussions. I'm not quite sure what discussions were like immediately after your proposal here, Vint, but I can see there's a lot of movement here and it's a topic very important. We also had Maarten Botterman with us, and I'd like to take this opportunity to ask whether we could continue collaboration between our Dynamic Coalitions? I think it's important to coordinate values.
>> SPEAKER: Just make sure not to schedule at the same time next time.
>> MODERATOR: Of Dynamic Coalitions, we really need to work on and have a meeting on it later in the week. This time we try and go through reverse order on the speakers. Joseph goes first. A minute or two. We have 15 minutes left to this discussion, and I'd like to give you all a chance to comment. Thanks.
>> SPEAKER: I'll answer the question related to India, because yes, it is a problem if there's no data protection law. The closest thing in India is the IT act amendments this look at security issues, but it's a conversation that has to be had a multi‑stakeholder all across the elements. I wanted to make one comment on Paul, because Paul is more complex than you said. They have to become a telco, because they're using SIM cards. So there's a huge complexity to how this happens.
Manufacturers are not looking at what that complexity might be, so that's not an issue brought to bear. Lastly, from Vint I think it's not just the hijacking of the device but the use of the data from the device in the RFID tires that come up.
>> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. Max, any comments on what you've heard?
>> SPEAKER: Yes. Quickly I agree, of course, that the definition for the Internet of Things has an ongoing point, but what we find in our discussions in internally, which are also, you know, different product areas, is the Internet working of these things is what it's about, and that defines the scope of what we talk whether we talk about IoT.
I think in a good way regarding for a coalition here, we couldn't talk about everything. We can't boil the ocean. How do we enter connect the things and make them interoperable and work together? I think that's a useful distinction also for the comment on privacy and IoT. I think it has been said before, but important to reiterate all the existing legislation and regulations on privacy remains, so there's no need to come up with an IoT privacy law or something like that.
A quick comment on the colleague from the Australian Women with Disabilities Group. I think IoT has enormous potential to transform exactly the lives of people with disabilities and other challenges, and, in fact, accessibility is good design and good IoT accessibility is going to be a great way to promote the use cases and the values of IoT.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Grace, please, if you have any comments or responses.
>> SPEAKER: Thank you. You know, I think the ‑‑ we've seen the ‑‑ there's been a difficulty with incentive for the private sector. In the United States we've been proponent of a private sector‑lead policies and development of Internet of Things standards and technologies, it's, but there's a difficult on the incentive side. Part of what commerce is doing it creating multi-stakeholder processes is to help with fostering an environment that is friendly to the private sector and self society.
We heard a lot of people in the room with different initiatives, and we want to continue to foster the initiatives and work with the Dynamic Coalition to keep this sort of private sector Civil Society led in multi‑stakeholder led movements. So that ‑‑ you know, we encourage you to get involved, and you heard about different multi‑stakeholder processes today. We encourage you to get involved in different ones, depending on your expertise and as Wolfgang noted earlier, the Internet of Things is it multi‑sectoral, if you spread the world and bring more in the community, we develop the best policies bottom up.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I hope you take this trip of this session and add it to the information that you're collecting. Okay. Vint, I have you next on the list. Thank you.
>> SPEAKER: First of all, I did not say that the users are solely responsible for safe operation of their devices. What I said is that they have a responsibility so let me make this more plain. From the ethical point of view, we should make devices responsibly so the makers have a responsibility, but we should use them responsibly as well. Second, I'd like to point out that artificial intelligence and machine running are not the same thing.
There's a lot of machine learning that goes on that's quite mechanical, and I discovered devices that learned the wrong things. Like my thermostats that they I'm never home and keep it very cold in the winter and very hot in the summer. I also wanted to remind people there was a comment about local area networking and connectivity of devices locally. Very, very important.
It would not be a good thing to have a house that doesn't work because it's not connected to the Internet. I don't love it that way that my house doesn't work when it's not connected. So it's important. When we speak of Internet of Things, we actually misrepresent what's going on.
These are programmable devices that are capable of being networked. Let me just stop there. They don't have to be on the public Internet to be useful. They may be very useful on the public Internet, but they could be quite dangerous.
Let's be careful with our vocabulary. I think Paul was right to remind us about that. That may mean using the term Internet of Things is embedded in the vocabulary now. It may draw the wrong picture to what these devices are capable of doing and what we can constrain them to do.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Jari, I have you next if you have comments and responses to things you heard.
>> SPEAKER: Thank you. I wanted to say quickly on this comment that Joe made about the question regarding areas where you have no regulation on, say, privacy or data protection. I want to add one thing, which is that when the industry or companies create solutions, they usually try to accommodate the whole word. Even if there's no regulation for a particular thing, it might not be required to use them. They do exist and apply to this discussion between different governments and there being a knee jerk reaction to have more regulation and standards for IoT.
I very much agree about the regulation piece but not surprisingly I disagree on the standards piece. Maybe there's a distinction between mandatory and voluntary standards. I may be more on the camp on voluntary standards. I think so most of the world is. If you like something you find useful, you pick it up and use it. If your customers demand you to do a particular standard, then that's business as usual.
I'd like to point out it creates a new solution and we can't stop talking about it anyway. You can have standards. I can't say what the other governments were saying, but we in the industry are calling four sufficient innovation on top of that or for innovation for further variance of standard.
I think we currently would have the world benefitting from further standards in the area of IoT, because our solutions are fairly fragments and we could create bigger markets by having more standards and more interoperability that benefits all of us. It's not about shutting down anybody's other ideas. Nor could we do that even if we wanted to. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jari. Olga. Please, if you have any comments or responses.
>> SPEAKER: Thank you. Again, I'm trying to bring some perspective from the developing countries. I do agree with Vint that IPV6 is a big issue in developing economies. I think RARs and ISBs are doing the best they can. There's still a way to go on. There are policy challenges, and the thing with developing economies is that the priorities are always others. So we're involved in this discussion and they're the ones to bring this issue to the local authorities so to avoid future captures or security and privacy implications.
I like the idea of the neutral point of view briefing papers. We have a language issue, so if we can help in translating those documents that can be very useful at the local level, and then to the private sector, I think I also captured my idea of doing simple things with simple technology may change a lot at the local level. And then it can enhanced with other layers of complex technology, but that could be the starting point. Thank you very much.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. And very much preached the conversation, the brevity with which people made their comments and the multi‑variant picture built of this problem space that we're working on here. So very much appreciate that. Before passing the microphone back to the chair of the Dynamic Coalition, I want to remind you that the Dynamic Coalitions, all of them, have put forth a bunch of different questions. There's a Dynamic Coalitions booth in the booth city where these questions and there is a survey on them. So I'd really appreciate it if all of you, since we all pass through the area several times, to stop at the Dynamic Coalition booth, check out the questions for this Dynamic Coalition as well as some of the others, because getting those survey questions answered would be useful for the Dynamic Coalitions in general, which as a member I'm trying to help coordinate. Thank you very much for that. It's yours.
>> Thanks again. Yes, these questions are also online. This is the Internet. So I really wanted to thank you all for your active participation and for your interest. I got the impression that people left the room before time and didn't do because they were bored by the session. So for sure in that way finding better ways to schedule the next IGF will be excellent. I do also believe that we did have a good session, which brought us further on multi perspectives.
This is not that is stuck before its time anymore. It's the business and we're in the middle of it. I think the need to have even more people be aware and not only to tell us what they want but also to be responsible players in this on all levels and it's important from the user up to supplier up to network provider up to platform provider.
In that indeed the call for open platforms and one that is still out there, and I think several will. I'm not seeking one solution, but at least some they're interoperable for the Google light bulb in the house or the other way around. Very important.
Also particularly on this level what has more emphasis here than anywhere else is what the application is for developing countries, and I heard Jari say that we really need a lot of that. I also heard recognition about that as well. It can already bring such a lot with these technologies in areas that really need it.
So in that I've been privileged to be part of the sec at the international (indiscernible). Think bring in young people from Africa to learn. They come three for three to six months and learn everything about certain subjects from connecting the bits to the wires to the wireless to how you go about it in the country that support the technology.
So initiatives like that, capacity building around world is important, too. If those countries if people themselves know highway to do it, they're much closer to the problems and technology becomes easier all the time. Privacy and data protection, yes, this will connection to be an issue that needs to be addressed. Otherwise you end up in a world that we don't want to be in anymore or we don't want our children to be in. Can I have the slides back for the remarks for ‑‑ the questions for tomorrow, and I would like to leave you with that.
So tomorrow these questions are already there today. This slide set is connected to this item in the program, so you can download it as well. There's also links to more information on the Internet on the activities. First, complexity will go up, and I think we will need to increasingly use technology to deal with complexity. This is also something I'd like to take out there.
Algorithms, maybe they should be ethical, too. I'll leave it there, because we don't have a discussion. Broke chain is go that's a term but let's be realistic about it and see where these technologies can help. That's the complexity dealing with complexity.
The other one was the remarks already on machine learning and AI. Imagine an environment that is totally arranging our lives around us, or that of our parents who cannot take care of themselves anymore. What happens if they take the decisions on what is best for those people that they care for?
Basically in that way the environment is almost like a low boat acts, and obviously my best insight in is that is coming from that, but we may need to find and implement ‑‑
>> SPEAKER: There are four laws and not three.
>> What is the zero flaw had to do with not harming humanity, but go ahead.
>> That's a tricky one. The last one is data protection and privacy concerns that stays with us. We see new businesses that have data ownership that's seen as a liability. Wouldn't it be great to use data for the good in this world? Let's keep that balance in mind as well.
These subjects might be on the agenda next time. For this time we make a report on the session. The transcript provided is very useful in this. Again, if you have more suggestions realize that you can always inform us. I'll share it with those in the Dynamic Coalition.
Last but not least is a call for you to get involved. This work is done with volunteers for more than 18 years now. I'm impressed by the work and the support I get and we do together while we've got them to. We always find good interest and high quality sessions at IGF and in between.
Maybe there's benefit in other organizations and sponsorship to come in and get real work done in this same fashion of independent global level multi‑stakeholder approach. If you have ideas to make it more sustainable or more impactful in that way, I'd be interested to hear from you as well and I'll be the rest of the week as well.
So speakers, thank you very much for your excellent contributions. Avri was impressive as well.
Thank you very much for your attentive interest, and I look forward to hearing more from you.
(Applause)
(Session ended at 11:18 a.m.)