►
From YouTube: InterCommunity 2017 - GENEVA, Switzerland
Description
InterCommunity 2017 - September 19 2017 - Live panel: Will the Internet of Things undermine the Internet of Trust?
HOST: ISOC Switzerland Chapter
VENUE: CERN, Geneva
By 2020, it is expected that 20.4 billion connected devices will get online. But the Internet of “Things” is more than smart grids, self-driving cars and connected wearables: it is very much about the people that use these devices, the data that they share willingly or not, and the potential security risks that these objects can pose for users and the Internet itself.
The convergence of the Internet and physical world promises to bring game changing shifts to the Internet and how it is used. In this context, what are the threats we should anticipate, and what role can different stakeholders play to make sure the IoT doesn’t hurt trust in and on the Internet?
This session explored questions such as:
* What are the privacy and security threats posed by IoT?
* What measures are needed to make IoT more secure? Is mass-encryption a solution?
* What should IoT manufacturers do? Are market-forces sufficient to lead to better security and privacy in IoT?
* Which stakeholders should be involved in IoT governance structures? (e.g. users, policymakers, technical community)
SPEAKERS
Robert Cailliau Internet Hall of Fame
François Flückiger, Internet Hall of Fame
Monique Morrow, President and Co-Founder of the Humanized Internet
Alberto Pace, CERN, Head of Storage
Roxana Radu, ISOC-CH
Ben Segal, Internet Hall of Fame
MODERATOR
Frederic Donck, ISOC European Regional Bureau
https://www.internetsociety.org/intercommunity/2017/nodes/geneva
B
C
Hello
from
Los
Angeles
to
Europe,
wonderful,
to
see
you
Bonjour,
Geneva
and
guten
tag
na
Deutsch
rights,
the
rights
of
harnessed
so
I'm
really
excited
to
be
part
of
this
birthday
party
going
around
the
world.
It
was
now
growing
around
for
several
hours
and
I
can
tell
you.
It
started
with
a
fabulous
party
on
our
side
where
we
had
a
group
of
young
people
so
enthusiastic
that
suddenly,
for
a
few,
while
discussing
with
Sam,
made
me
clear
that
young
people
going
forward
will
help
to
keep
the
Internet
in
a
way
we
like
it.
C
We
expect
it
and
we
hope
it
and
at
the
same
time
we
had
two
inductees
to
all
of
Fame
and
all
the
former
inductees
of
the
Hall
of
Fame.
So
we
saw
that
says
history
and
it's
a
way
through
different
feelings.
You
feel
young
for
a
moment,
and
suddenly
you
realize
you
are
with
us
for
20
years
30
years
you
are
suddenly
feeling
old.
So
it's
a
great
thing
and
we
have
to
go
and
we
have
to
keep
it
on
and
I
hope.
You
have
a
good
group
and
a
good
discussion
to
start
about
things.
A
A
lot
thanks
Peter,
so
it
takes
for
your
nice
words,
so
everybody
knows
Hans,
Peter,
Hans,
Peter
dieter
is
one
of
our
Board
of
Trustee
members.
So,
let's
start
with
our
discussion
of
the
day,
we
on
line
and
I'm
very
pleased
to
in
a
few
second
introduce
or
really
great
panel.
The
reason
why
we
opted
for
the
intent
of
things.
It's
not
a
pure
coincidence.
As
you
have
heard
from
the
presentation
of
my
colleague
in
our
futures
report.
A
We
were
very
concerned
to
see
that
indeed,
the
convergence
between
the
internet
and
things
might
just
be
imposing
a
lot
of
different
issues
at
security
in
privacy
level
is
exactly
what
we
will
be
talking
about
in
a
few
seconds,
whether
or
not
it
will
have
an
impact
on
people
and
people,
trust
in
the
internet,
those
twenty
billion,
sensors
and
Internet
of
Things.
So,
in
order
to
talk
about
this,
we
have
what
I
believe
one
of
the
most
wonderful
panel
that
we
might
just
ever
dreamed
off
and
I
will
start
introducing
each
of
them.
A
So
please
bear
with
me:
we
have
three
Hall
of
Famers
in
this
room,
starting
with
you
have
fko.
You
were
one
of
our
first
inductee
in
2012.
You
are
of
course
well
known
for
the
proposal
developed
with
Tim
Bernoulli's
of
a
hypertext
system
for
accessing
documentation
that
eventually
will
become
the
World
Wide
Web.
You
also
produce
the
first
web
browsers
for
the
Apple
Macintosh
in
92
and
then
in
93.
You
start
to
do
wise.
The
first
web-based
project
at
the
European
Commission.
A
You
of
course
worked
with
CERN
to
produce
and
we
get
the
document
approved
whereby
certain
place
the
web
technology
into
the
public
domain,
for
which
we
so
thankful.
Just
then
Francois
Francois,
cooking
here
you're
also
a
Hall
of
Fame
in
2013.
You
are
a
leader
of
the
struggle
to
promote
the
internet
in
Europe
and
you
are
the
one
who
conveyed
back
in
November
1988,
the
founding
meeting
that
led
to
the
creation
of
ripe,
the
hazel
I
P
over
the
nonprofit
European
organization
that
conducts
the
technical
coordination
of
the
infrastructure
of
the
internet.
A
You
also
contribute
in
92
to
the
creation
of
a
bond,
the
pan-european
Internet
backbone
and
you
arranged
in
that
same
year
for
the
European
Organization,
the
CERN
become
a
founding
member
of
the
internet
society,
for
which
we're
also
very
thankful,
and
in
your
3
times
then
I'm
a
fan
of
it.
You
also
drop
some
wonderful
cartoons
about
people
in
the
Internet.
Thank
you
for
this,
and
last
but
not
least,
for
the
Hall
of
Fame's
Ben,
Ben
Siegel,
you
were
an
inductee
in
2014,
and
very
country.
I
would
just
tripped
your
picture.
A
We
have
manic
manic,
Marro
manic.
You
are
president
and
co-founder
of
the
humanized
internet,
a
nonprofit
organization
focused
on
providing
digital
identity
for
those
individual
most
underserved,
but
you
also
an
associate
researchers
at
Alexander,
humble
University,
Institute
of
Internet
and
Society.
And
last
but
not
least,
you
are
culture
to
the
I
Triple
E
ethics
in
artificial
intelligence,
an
autonomous
system
mixed
reality
committee.
In
addition
to
being
a
member
of
its
executive
committee.
Thank
you
for
being
there
Alberto
Alberto
pacce.
A
You
are
a
member
of
friend
thank
you
very
much
you're
member
of
the
IT
department,
where
you
lead
the
data
management
group,
ensuring
occurring
development
process
for
physics,
data
management
activities,
surely
driven
by
operational
and
user
needs,
and
you
got
more
than
20
years
experience
in
computing
services
infrastructure
software
engineer.
So
thank
you
for
joining
us.
Last
but
not
least,
Roxana
I'm
very
happy
to
welcome
you.
A
Who
knows
if
you
continue
to
do
what
you
do
best
and
that
is
you
being
a
doctrinal
after
your
PhD,
you
were
being
a
wired
to
Swiss
Network
for
international
studio
work
2017
for
your
PhD
on
global
rules
for
emerging
issues,
domains
negotiating
the
governance
of
the
Internet
and
the
jewelry
understand
was
extremely
enthusiastic
to
the
way
you
managed
all
those
complexity
of
governance
in
the
event.
So
thank
you
for
being
there
today.
I
will
start
with
a
very
candid
questions,
but
before
I
do
that,
please
remember.
A
We
are
in
the
Internet
Society
here
well
host
by
concern,
and
the
principle
is
that
this
is
really
interactive,
so
I
will
ask
you
and
turn
in
a
few
second,
after
my
first
question
to
the
audience
so
that
we
have
a
really
nice
conversation
with
the
panel.
My
first
questions
and
I
will
start
with
you.
Harbor.
If
you
don't
mind
my
first
card,
my
first
question
would
be
very
candidly
while
talking
about
the
intent
of
things,
what
are
the
privacy
and
security
trust
that
you
feel
are
really
concerning?
D
Yes,
thank
you.
Well,
we
had
some
discussions
about
these
things
before
and
my
first
objection
was
perhaps
to
the
title:
undermine
the
internet
of
trust.
I
have
never
known
an
Internet
of
trust,
so
you
know
you
could
only
undermine
something
that
exists.
This
is
probably
the
most
fundamental
thing
to
discuss
today.
That
is
there
is
trust,
because
all
of
these
issues
are
about
trust,
and
it's
about
trust
in
people
that
are
far
away
can
influence
you
instantly
and
you
have
never
met,
or
probably
don't
never
me
so.
This
is.
D
This
is
a
very,
very
big
issue
to
come
back
for
a
few
seconds
to
the
the
Internet
of
Things.
Well,
as
I
said
in
a
talk
some
years
ago,
maybe
we
should
first
get
some
of
these
things
to
work
properly
today.
Already
this
morning
we
saw
the
failure
of
microphones
all
right.
We
saw
the
failure
of
the
presentation
of
at
least
two
people,
and
then
somebody
mentioned
the
toaster
was
it
you
I
mentioned
No.
Somebody
mentioned
the
toaster
on
the
Internet
right.
D
Well,
first
give
me
a
toaster
that
will
brown
the
bread
to
the
shade
that
I
set
instead
of
working
on
a
timer
right.
This
seems
to
be
a
technologically
extremely
difficult
problem,
much
more
so
than
connecting
it
to
the
internet.
So
we
have
problems
that
are
different
from
connecting
things
up
to
the
internet
and
finally,
I'd
like
to
put
the
whole
thing
into
into
perspective.
We
should
do
our
bit
and
try
to
think
about
these
problems
because
that's
where
we
can
help,
but
we
should
never
forget
the
bigger
issues
of
the
the
planetary
issues.
D
A
A
E
These
objects
are
entering
in
everyone's
home
and
today,
what
probably
is
one
of
the
major
issues
is
the
lack
of
awareness
of
the
end
of
the
consumer
and
the
end
users
about
the
privacy
concern
that
this
device
can
bring
by
taking
data
that
are
personally
and
then
shipping
to
the
manufacturer
of
these
objects.
Okay,
thank.
F
A
as
a
technical
person,
the
problem
of
Internet
of
Things,
is
a
staggering
problem
in
scale.
We're
talking
about
one
or
two
orders
of
magnitude
increase
one
or
more,
the
current
internet,
with
all
its
problems,
its
problems
of
governance,
its
problems
of
security,
its
problem,
its
social
problems,
we're
talking
about
scaling
that
up
by
several
orders
of
magnitude,
also
the
devices
that
were
connecting
don't
have
the
space,
the
power
and
the
resource
of
most
things
which
you
connect
to
the
internet.
F
Nowadays,
the
other
scaling
issue
which
is
pretty
hair-raising,
is
that
all
this
is
being
done
on
an
exponential
curve.
That's
speeding
up
so
much
much
more
than
when
we
built
the
internet
140
years
ago
and
since
20
years
ago,
20
odd
years
ago,
and
really
using
that
scale
of
increase
of
speed
is
just
hallucinating.
So
that's
just
the
scale
of
a
difficulties.
F
G
I'd
like
to
bring
in
the
user
and
the
governance
perspective
here,
because
when
we
talk
about
a
trusted
internet,
this
is
a
rather
subjective
measure.
I
trust
the
device
to
do
what
it
is
supposed
to
do
so
I
have
a
SmartWatch
I
trust
it
to
do
what
it's
supposed
to
do
and
not
share
data
beyond
what
I
consented
to,
ideally,
or
at
least
what
I
am
knowledgeable
of.
G
We've
heard
this
over
and
over
again
the
more
we
share,
the
more
we
have
information
about
ourselves
on
on
the
Internet,
the
better
it
is
for
us.
Our
lifestyle
will
benefit
from
this,
our
well-being
as
well.
We
are
sharing
more
and
that's
it's
it's
better
for
all
of
us,
but
to
take
an
example,
if
we
think
about
health
related
devices,
that
is
not
necessarily
the
case.
G
In
fact,
what
we
see
is
that
some
some
insurance
companies
introduce
policies
that
make
you
wear
a
bracelet
that
can
monitor
your
activity
all
the
time
and
according
to
that,
you
have
different
subscription
levels.
So
that
means
that
the
IOT
devices
are
also
used
as
a
form
of
control,
and
here
is
where
we
have
to
think
about
the
right
to
disconnect
or
the
right
to
be
invisible
to
some
of
these
devices,
because
it
is
not
just
about
favoring
those
who
are
part
of
it.
G
H
You
pause
well,
please
thank
you
to
predict
what
may
happen
with
the
IOT.
Is
it
may
be
good
to
have
a
look
backward
to
the
predictions
some
of
us
made
in
the
early
90s
the
inception
of
the
early
internet,
so
in
94,
I
wrote
a
book
where
I
said
that
my
fear
for
what
I
call
a
that
ID
profiling
me.
So
at
that
time,
with
a
aware-
or
there
may
be
a
few
hundreds
of
servers
in
94,
so
I
say
clever
servers
we'll
try
to
learn
what
our
tastes
are
from
our
requests.
H
After
a
while,
they
will
always
suggested
activities
and
cultural
programs
to
item
they
match
our
profile.
The
probability
of
impromptu
discoveries
or
cultural
revelations
will
be
drastically
reduced
and
I
concluded.
The
internet
shows
the
seeds
of
an
impoverishment
of
the
spectrum
of
people.
Interest
I,
believe
this
as
material
as
indeed
and
I
think
that
the
Internet
of
Things
will
at
the
new
dimension
to
profiling,
because
the
system
will
not
only
observe
what
we
do,
but
also
what
objects
we
have
and
what
they
do.
The
objects
so
I
am
here
there.
H
Another
friction
I
made
was
what
I
called
this
integration
of
the
face-to-face
socialization,
in
particular
for
the
youngest
I
wrote
with
the
internet
movies
on
demand.
Remote
computers
games
may
constitute
new
new
departure
in
solitary
activities.
This
is
particularly
worrying
for
younger
children
and
I
concluded.
Probably
the
way
internet
will
be
used
reflects
the
overall
trend
of
winter
Western
civilization's
towards
in
the
individualism.
H
So
again,
this
has
materialized,
I,
think
and
I.
Think
the
Internet,
in
terms
of
things,
will
worsen
that
that
situation,
because,
in
addition
to
play
at
a
distance
with
people
and
systems,
our
kids
may
also
play
at
this
sense
with
their
objects.
So
this
will
add
a
new,
a
new
dimension.
I
think
this
sounds
a
bit
negative,
a
few
other
negatives,
but
all
the
positives,
but
I
will
we
will
come
back
to
that
later.
I
hope
so.
I
I
What
is
the
intentionality
of
a
device
that
has
been
created?
How
we
do
we
understand
what
intentionality
of
usage
means
and
are
we
communicating
to
consumers?
For
example,
this
goes
into
the
notion
of
safety.
If
we
think
about
so-called
smart
homes,
let's
say,
for
example,
I
used
an
exploit
or
a
vulnerability
to
go
into
somebody's
house
such
that
it
results
in
somebody's
desk
death
who,
in
what
entity
is
responsible?
Is
it
the
manufacturer
of
the
device?
I
I
The
other
notion
is,
is
around
data
leakage
and
and
the
whole
notion
of
our
own
sets
of
identities
and
privacy
and
privacy.
You
know
I
always
ask
the
question
of
all
whether
or
not
we
are
in
control
or
whether
or
not
people
care
right.
So
data
leakages
is
another
issue
and
it
becomes
a
major
issue
when
we're
thinking
about
the
general
data
protection
regulation.
That's
coming
up
in
Europe
on
May,
25th
and
2018.
I
How
is
that
going
to
look-
and
the
last
point
I
will
make-
is
that
we're
now
looking
at
employees
microchipping
at
the
moment
so
think
about
three
square
market
I?
Think
it's
a
company
and
I
believe
it's
in
Wisconsin
that
are
now
microchipping
themselves
such
that
they
can
come
in
with
a
microchip
and
actually
pass
through
security?
I
What
happens
when
that
employee
is
no
longer
an
employee?
You
just
pull
the
chip
out
or
or
what
so
we're
we're
really
into
this
space
of
things,
but
things
also
at
the
human
level.
So
it's
it's
not
to
paint
a
dystopian
society,
but
it
is
around
how
we
communicate
just
as
you
usage
of
technologies,
just
as
you
have
a
pack
of
cigarettes
to
say
that
somehow
this
may
cause
cancer.
Are
we
communicating
effectively.
A
Well,
thank
you
very
much
for
this
first
warm-up
I
mean
seriously.
You
touch
upon
so
many
different
angles.
We
will
have
to
choose
one
by
one:
I
mean
starting
with
trust:
the
deficit
in
trust,
awareness
of
users,
the
scalability,
the
mass
surveillance.
Well,
what
Bruce
Schneier
would
call
the
surveillance
capitalism,
the
fact
that
we
are
in
a
society
where
there
are
so
many
incentives
actually
to
just
make
sure
variants
on
us.
Let
me
let
me
go
unless
there
is
someone
who
want
and
asked
already
a
question.
Please
wait.
A
A
J
Hi
taissa
Shelly
from
my
coaching
consulting
I
have
a
question
in
matters
of
trust,
about
reciprocity
and
the
Internet
of
Things,
because
we
are
talking
about
why
you're
giving
out
and
what
you're
getting
in
return.
So
we
say
ignorance
is
bliss
in
a
way
because
you
don't
know
you
could
get
more
so
you're
happy
have
some
states
and
we
all
talk
about
key
performance
indicators
I
like
to
study
that
key
satisfaction,
satisfaction
indicator.
A
E
J
Think
right
now
there's
much
more
than
what
you
could
give
and
talking
about
personal
example:
I'm
entering
many
startups
and
one
in
particular,
and
health,
tech
and
they're
working
at
something.
That's
groundbreaking.
Obviously
they
all
say
this.
That
is
the
notion
of
reciprocity
with
your
health
data
right
now
it's
not
happening.
You
know
you
can't
have
all
this
objects
connected
objects,
then
you're
not
getting
as
much
as
you
should
get
because
you're
giving
the
information
out.
So
what
are
they
giving
you?
You
know,
so
you
know
I,
think
money
money,
maybe
I,
find.
I
That
as
a
an
excellent
question,
because
we
are
whether
you're
the
connected
body,
the
connected
human
being,
you
know,
like
you,
go
10,000
steps
and
who
is
what
entities
are
collecting
that
device
that
information
and
for
what
purpose?
Who
are
the
actors
involved?
The
actors
could
be
insurance
players,
they
could
be
your
employers,
etc,
and
so
I
don't
know
what
the
correct
answer
should
be.
I
I
But
it
is
a
question
because
the
danger
here
is
that
I
could
take
that
data
and
say
you
know
you
can
give
it
to
your
employer
such
that
you
were,
you
have
a
health
problem
or
maybe
you're
diabetic
or
whatever,
and
then
you
don't
know
it.
So
there
are
players,
it
was
always
the
question
of
who
owns
my
data.
Well,
of
course,
the
answer:
is
you
own
your
data?
It's
like
Copernicus,
you
know
the
Sun
is
essentially
you
know
the
universe.
I
A
Privacy,
as
you
just
say,
I
mean
I,
give
something
what
do
I
have
in
return.
Who
should
we
turn
to
in
order
to
make
this
transaction
okay
with
us
I
mean?
Do
you
believe
and
I'm
open
the
question
to
you
that
the
market
will
solve
this?
Is
the
market
mitem
I
know?
How
may
we
discuss
this
during
lunch
through
I
will
start
with
you?
Do
you
believe
that,
eventually,
the
market
will
find
a
way
for
me
as
users
to
be
happy
with
the
transaction?
A
D
No
I
don't
want
to
take
it,
but
you
have
the
mic.
So
good
forget
I
have
the
mic.
No
other
I,
don't
think.
Tomorrow
will
solve
this
at
all
and
and
in
any
case
in
industry,
you
look
at
the
differential
equations.
You
will
get
monopolies.
In
fact
we
have
one
of
these.
We
have
world
government
in
the
form
of
Apple
and
Google
and
and
all
of
those
guys
you
know
Facebook,
they
are
the
world
government,
they
decide
what
you
see,
what
you
don't
see.
D
They
decide
to
upgrade
my
iPhone
without
my
consent,
consent
and
stuff
like
that.
So
and
they
are
all
outside
my
legal
space,
so
I
can't
do
anything.
I'm
stuck
and
I
can't
not
go
on
it
or
with
it.
But
you
know
you
can't
stop
the
evolution
of
this
in
any
way
and
therefore,
if
there
is
something
bright
on
the
horizon,
it
may
be
a
global
AI
that
may
decide
not
to
exterminate
us.
The
move,
yeah.
G
Decided
to
be
a
little
bit
more
skeptical
on
the
power
of
artificial
intelligence
to
govern
the
world
properly.
We've
we've
been
trying
to
solve
this
to
govern
first
off,
yes,
not
properly.
So
when
we
look
at
a
ioveiy,
I
and
iot
devices
that
implement
they.
Of
course,
we
have
different
architectures
in
place,
and
one
of
the
underlying
questions
here
is
whether
we
can
go
ahead
with
the
governance
system.
G
Obviously,
because
right
now
we're
talking
about
users
potentially
getting
locked
into
certain
technologies,
not
having
the
power
to
disconnect
trusting
so-called
black
box,
really
not
knowing
how
these
devices
communicate
and
still
trusting
that
there
will
be
a
way
to
to
make
it
fair
for
them,
but
in
terms
of
price,
in
terms
of
the
data
exchange
and
so
on.
So
right
now,
I
think
the
biggest
question
we
are
facing,
and
maybe
it's
also
the
biggest
opportunity
we
have-
is
defining
the
the
governance
framework
in
which
all
these
devices
will
operate
and
I
do
believe.
G
So
if
you
think
about
the
new
generation
people
who
are
exposed
to
this
from
the
zero
day,
one
of
their
of
their
life
and
will
have
to
live
in
a
world
that
is
completely
dominated
by
such
devices
around
them.
So
the
question
of
governance.
It's
really
at
the
core
of
all
of
this,
and
it
is
a
great
opportunity
for
us.
H
I,
think
a
major
technology
called
threat
to
the
to
the
future
internet
from
a
technology
point
of
view,
and
this
is
the
risk
or
the
already
existing
fragmentation
of
the
technology.
Look
when
you
send
a
letter
when
you
place
a
phone
call,
you
do
not
have
to
bother.
How
is
my
recipient
connected?
What
does
it
use?
At
the
other
hand,
because
the
interface
we
use
is
a
standard,
it's
universal.
We
know
we
know
what
the
format
of
a
letter
is.
H
We
use
a
single
telephone
without
able
to
know
what
is
out
what
is
at
the
end.
It
has
to
be
the
same
for
Internet
applications.
It
is
still
the
same
for
email.
We
send
an
email
without
knowing
we
may
use
whatever
interface
we
want,
but
without
knowing
whether
the
other
person
is
using
protocol
a
or
video
all
use,
SMTP
and
and
and
the
internet
protocols.
However,
they
started
to
be
different
for
new
applications.
Look
when
you
want
to
place
a
videoconference
with
someone
you
have
to
know.
What
are
you
playing?
H
Do
you
have
an
apple
which
complete
application,
do
you
use
and
more
and
more
it
gets
complicated,
more
and
more
complicated
with
mobile
devices,
because
most
of
the
time
we
use
applications.
So
we
have
seen
already
the
end
of
the
universal
internet
for
basic
web
surfing.
We
still
use
the
same
start
out,
but
beyond
that
it's
whole
proprietary.
It's
quite
concerning
this
fragmentation.
H
Can
we
do
something?
Maybe
in
the
internet,
with
the
technologist
may
well
be
too
slow,
for
example,
for
video
conferencing,
it
will
be
too
slow
to
come
along
with
stable
standards,
even
simple
and
sky
take
over
with
the
proprieties
among
others.
However,
I
think
that
it
is
time
to
be
conscious
that
we
may
be
ending
the
the
end
nearing
the
end
of
the
universal
Internet
in
terms
of
in
terms
of
technology.
A
Okay,
well,
yes,
you're
right
I
mean
we
should
address
fragmentation
and
by
the
way,
this
fragmentation,
the
one
you
described,
is
just
happening
with
our
full
support
of
users,
actually
because
we
are
full
users
of
those
many
apps
and
while
it
guidance
anyway,
so
we
may
be
willing
to
address
this
I'd
like
to
come
back
before
we
get
there
again
to
what
you
just
said
by
the
way.
Okay.
A
So
we
got
the
idea
that
the
market
might
not
be
willing
to
address
this
order
to
fix
it
right,
so
some
people
in
our
community
believe
and
start
being
very
vocal
about
the
fact
that
it
might
just
be
an
open
door
to
regulation.
What
do
you
think
and
and
I
would
like
to
extend
these
questions
to
the
audience?
Do
you
believe?
A
That's
the
end
of
the
kind
of
candid
use
of
the
Internet,
where
we
no
need
to
get
back
to
governments
and
asking
them
to
regulate
or
regulators
to
really
so
that
the
kind
of
ugly
thing
that
we're
discussing
here
you
know
the
the
the
frets
the
vulnerabilities,
the
liable.
These
of
some
actors
should
be
addressed
by
regulation
governments.
What's
your
thoughts,
I
see
Richard
waving
his
hands
the
new,
the
new?
Let's
start
with
you,
Richard
I.
K
Think
you
should
rephrase
it
a
little
bit
Frederic,
because
I
think
we
should
get
away
from
this
myth
that
somehow
the
internet
was
never
regulated.
It
was
always
subject
to
national
laws
and
in
some
countries
the
national
laws
were
such
that,
in
particular
in
the
US.
The
internet
was
not
regulated
the
same
way
as
the
telephone
system
was
regulated,
but
slowly
even
in
the
u.s.
certain
things
are
coming
back
like
net
neutrality,
legal
intercept
was
added
to
the
internet
quite
some
years
ago.
K
So
I
think
you're
asking
the
right
question,
but
I
would
rephrase
it
a
little
bit.
What
do
we
think
is
the
correct
level
of
government
regulation
or
not
regulation,
because
in
some
areas
I
do
think
the
government
shouldn't
intervene
at
all,
but
in
other
areas
it
should
and
I
think
that's
how
I
would
phrase
it
and
forget
this
myth
that
somehow
the
internet
once
was
never
regulated,
that's
back
when
they
were
starting.
It
and
I
was
at
MIT
at
the
time,
and
there
were
10
servers
after
that.
B
From
our
great
University
of
Geneva
I'm
surprised,
we
got
this
far
in
the
session
without
saying
the
word
blockchain,
and
you
know
we're
talking
about
trust
and
Bloch.
Him
seems
to
be
without
getting
into
all
the
hype,
a
new
paradigm
for
trust,
peer-to-peer
trust
that
circumvents
top-down
governance
of
governments,
but
also
of
large
corporations.
What
do
you
think
about
that?.
L
Won't
also
focus
on
the
internet
of
things
with
government,
not
forcing
companies
to
regulate
stuff
at
the
moment,
at
least
not
in
most
countries.
How
long
do
you
think
will
it
be
with
increasing
as
fast
as
it
is
now
that
there's
no
public
pressure
that
the
politicians
will
get
the
ideas
on
their
own,
that
they
might
need
to
change
something
and
what
disaster
or
scandal
would
speak
it
up?
So.
I
Yeah,
these
are
great
questions,
Marco,
so
awful
blockchain
and
then
then
your
last
question
was
just
really
an
awesome
question
to
libertarian
view
I
mean
you
know
you
have
the
this
is
the
whole
issue
around
transparency,
around
blog
the
whole
notion
of
what
is
registered
and
it's
distributed,
and
the
whole
notion
is
that
there
is
not
a
centralized
authority
behind
it.
So
at
best
the
only
thing
that
you
have
to
look
at
is
what
are
the
implications
to
privacy.
I
It's
pseudonymous,
as
best
I
can
probably
deduce
by
the
transactions
and
the
cipher
exchanges
that
maybe
it
is
so
and
so
doing
that.
But
you
know
that's
that's
a
big,
that's
something
that
is
in
play
today
and
I.
Think
that,
as
I
said
earlier
as
a
comment
to
to
Richards
panel,
you
know
that
that
cat
is
already
out
of
the
box
to
your
question
so
so
watch
this
space
very
carefully,
because
I
think
that's
going
to
be
very
interesting.
I
Around
transparency,
the
whole
topic
of
transparency
to
your
question,
around
regulation
and
and
where
so
Richard
is
this
Krait
spot
on?
You
know
parts
and
parts
of
what
we've
been
talking
about
as
that
quote-unquote
Internet
is
they
had
a
regulated
space
and
recall
that
the
origin
is
around
orphanet?
You
know
DARPA,
and
that
was
a
defense,
US
Defense
experiment.
Having
said
that,
I
think
what
will
happen.
I
think
I'd
strongly
believe
in
multi-stakeholder
I.
I
Do
believe
that
you
need
private,
and
you
know
public
cooperation
here,
but
it
goes
to
the
question,
because
technology
is
moving
so
quickly
to
the
earlier
panel.
Do
people
government
authorities
understand
what
the
technologies
are
and
what
the
implications
are
to
society
and
safety
because
they
have
to
what
happens.
Typically
is
an
accident
if
I
say
Equifax
data
breach,
143
million
Americans
and
as
a
48
hours
ago,
400,000
UK
citizens,
that's
a
data
breach,
that's
data
that
gets
everybody
up
right.
I
So
when
you
have
something
a
data
breach,
an
accident,
a
series
of
accidents,
I
think
people
start
to
or
entity
start
to
wake
up,
and
the
last
point
I
wanted
to
make
is
I
strongly
believe
that
we
have
to
think
about
as
some
notion
of
a
cooperative
code
of
ethics.
When
we're
talking
about
technology,
thing
development
and
some
kind
of
code
of
honor,
of
how
thing
how
things
will
be
used,
cooperatively
amongst
manufacturers
themselves
right
and
I,
think
that
has
to
be
more
public,
that's
my
I.
Take.
A
It
before
you,
you
ask,
or
you
make
your
comment,
I,
believe
we
need
to
discuss
this
manic
as
well.
There
will
be
been
services
that
they
might
just
be
wanted
person
soon.
You
know
someone
in
this
chair
with
you,
know
a
remote
control,
but
someone
shine
and
we
just
press
something
in
this
chair.
My
just
you
know
making
like
a
fresh
orange
juice
or
something
I
mean
the
moment.
There
will
be
someone
who
will
just
die
from
the
internet
of
things.
A
A
M
Laugh
yeah
I
promise
to
channel
questions
from
the
from
the
room
from
the
from
the
inter-community
room
and
Tony.
Don't
you
had
a
question
that
actually
relates
to
something
that
I
care
about?
Deeply
is
suppose
that
everybody
wants
to
do
the
right
thing
suppose
that
everybody
wants
to
build.
You
know
decent
security
in
their
fridges
and
light
bulbs.
These
companies
that
are
now
to
moving
into
the
IOT
don't
have
the
history
and
culture
with
respects
to
security
that
the
more
traditional
device
manufacturers
have.
M
D
E
Think
that
we
should
try
to
be
a
little
bit
optimist.
Clearly
we
are
just
at
the
beginning.
This
is
a
major
revolution
that
is
ahead
so
trying
to
from
our
standpoint
trying
to
guess
the
future
is
extremely
difficult.
The
the
technology
evolution
that
we
can
expect
in
the
coming
years
is
so
impressive
in
all
domains
that
it
will
make
no
difference
today
between
bringing
a
computer
online
or
a
device
online,
because
very
likely
the
the
new
device,
even
the
tiniest
one,
will
have
all
the
normal
tcp/ip
protocol
stack
that
you
find
normal
computers.
E
So
today,
at
the
beginning,
we
may
have
a
very,
very
little
tiny
device
which
have
a
very
very
little
memory,
and
so
they
run
a
stripped-down
versions
which
maybe
are
vulnerable
or
not
patched,
etc,
but
very
likely.
This
technical
problem
may
be
solved,
but
it's
extremely
difficult
to
understand
how
intrusive
this
new
technology
will
be
in
everyone's
life.
A
D
I
agree:
we
discussed
this
some
last
three.
This
technological
problem
of
the
difference
between
the
manufacturers
of
these
new
devices
and
the
more
traditional
ones
will
just
go
away
that
that
isn't
really
a
problem.
What
is
the
problem
is,
is
where
do
you
put
two
different
boundaries
or
shells
or
areas
around
you
where
you
let
things
come
in
and
my
light
bulbs,
even
if
they
are
IP
capable
I,
see
no
reason
to
ever?
D
Have
them
on
the
wide
global
Internet
I
mean
they
should
stay
this
side
of
my
router
or
whatever
the
is
there
in
the
in
the
future.
So
there's,
maybe
a
shell
type
structure
that
we
can
imagine
where
these
are
the
they
are
all
devices
operate
in
the
same
way
using
the
same
technology,
but
there
are
different
levels
of
boundaries
there
to
guard
things
better.
F
The
internet,
the
internet,
was
built
with
a
lot
of
collective
intelligence,
built
bottom-up
and
that's
been
it's
one
of
its
main
strengths.
I
think
our
challenge
today
is
to
try
to
apply
that
collective
intelligence
again
and
effectively.
We
know
it's
very
difficult,
but
if
we
can
do
things
openly
and
using
open
source
and
open
debate,
we
have
a
chance
Monique
by
the
way,
gave
a
talk
earlier
this
year
at
TEDx
Geneva,
where
the
theme
was
are
we
in
control?
F
We
have
to
try
to
remain
in
control
on
this
we're
on
this
helter-skelter
and
it
seems
to
me
the
only
way
to
deal
with
an
exponential
like
this
is
with
an
exponential
increase
of
intelligence.
Hopefully,
that
is
gonna,
be
human
intelligence
and
well-intentioned
human
intelligence.
That's
our
challenge
to
couple
that
and
whether
one
is
an
optimist
or
a
pessimist:
I
don't
know
I.
G
Definitely
agree
that
the
question
here
is:
where
do
we
as
a
society
come
together
to
define
the
limits
of
what
should
and
should
not
be
online?
What
is
to
be
taking
it
into
account
ethically
and
what?
What
shouldn't
be
a
consideration
for
a
machine
and
in
reality,
if
we
have
to
think
ahead
most
likely,
we
will
have
a
mix
of
different
governance
mechanisms.
G
There
will
be
some
soft
law,
there
will
be
some
hard
law
and
some
attempts
for
self-regulation,
and
even
if
some
devices
are
capable
of
regulating
themselves,
they
will
never
do
it
in
connection
to
the
much
broader
ecosystem
in
which
they
operate
right.
So
the
interest
of
those
who
create
them
or
a
smaller
community
will
take
priority
over
the
interest
of
all
of
us
together
as
a
society
and
for
this
I
guess
the,
and
also
to
answer
the
question
from
from
the
online
community.
Maybe
we
need
a
forum
for
discussion.
G
N
N
A
O
So
this
has
been
a
very
interesting
conversation
and
we've
been
talking
a
lot
about.
You
know
giving
away
our
data
to
big
companies
and
whether
or
not
governments
play
a
role
in
this
in
regulating
this
environment
and
in
support
to
reach
your
statement.
Yes,
I
think
this
has
caught
government's
attention.
In
fact,
we
have
a
database
called
cyber
law.
O
If
anybody
wants
to
look
it
up
where
we
can
see
what
a
difference
hyper
security
law
is
in
place
in
different
countries,
but
I
think
another
interesting
question
that
I
would
like
to
also
understand
is
like
what
about
giving
our
data
away
to
the
government's
itself.
Say:
governments
want
to
access
the
data
for
the
purpose
of
security,
and
you
know
say
they
can
say
that
this
part
of
the
government
gov
govern,
and,
if
that's
you
know,
the
right
thing
to
do.
I
mean
it's
of
course,
interesting
to
draw
the
line
on.
O
I
Right
now
is
the
balancing
act.
I
go
back
to
I,
think
the
cover
lira
question
around
blockchain
I,
so
you
have,
you
have
government's
involved,
I
mean
think
about
it.
I
used
I
had
been
working
with
some
refugees.
It
didn't
matter
that
they
had
digital
documentation
available.
What
governments
were
looking
for
was
the
provenance
of
the
paperwork
right,
it
didn't
matter,
and
so
your
marriage
certificate
or
your
university
degree
or
your
social
security
number.
I
Somehow
that
comes
to
you
by
a
government,
and
so
it
goes
back
to
who
do
you,
trust
and
and
and
in
what
format
do
you
trust?
Could
you
imagine
taking
your
identities
and
your
sets
of
identities
and
papers
in
a
digital
format
with
you
at
any
point
in
time?
What
if
Switzerland
doesn't
like
you
anymore?
I
You
know,
can
you
go
someplace
else,
and
that
goes
to
a
harder
problem
of
data
sovereignty
but
or
sovereignty
over
all,
I
go
back
to
things
and
the
whole
notion
of
things
were
you
know
whether
or
not
you
have
a
light
bulb
connected
to
the
internet
or
not
I
agree
with
you,
you
probably
don't
want
it
like
all
connected
to
the
internet.
However,
you've
got
these
smart
devices,
think
about
Alexa
and
all
of
these
devices
in
your
home.
I
Gets
a
little
creepy
after
a
while
even
in
your
own
home,
and
do
you
know
the
implicit
implications
of
what
it
is
you're
doing
from
convenience
sake
to
your
point:
convenience
am
I
a
member
of
em
I'm,
a
digital
member
of
citizen
of
Apple
or
Amazon
or
whatever
that
looks
like
convenience
versus?
Are
you
a
really
aware
of
what
it
is
you're
doing
and
how
is
that
being
communicated
in
itself
right?
So
listen
to
look
at
that
digital
television?
I
D
You
that
was
an
interesting
example
of
this
baby
watching
camera.
There
I
have
a
few
devices
like
that,
but
they
never
communicate
outside
my
own
local
area
network,
so
I
can
trust
them
there,
because
it
doesn't
I
didn't
buy
the
camera,
with
the
link
to
the
guys
who
bought
the
camera,
who
sold
me.
The
camera
I'm
not
going
far
away
and
coming
back
I'm
staying
in
my
own
home
and
I.
Think
that
again,
is
is
part
of
the
awareness
of
people
they
buy.
A
I
To
the
point
that
you
just
made,
people
need
to
know
how
things
are
used
and
not
allow
that
leakage
to
have
occurred
elsewhere,
and
so,
when
that
accident,
that
theoretical
accident
happens,
you
know
it
goes
back
to
who
is
responsible
at
the
end
and
the
consumer.
Does
it,
the
consumer
is
responsible,
the
consumer
just
doesn't
owe
know
that
per
say.
E
One
comment
because
everything
we
are
describing
is
already
happening
today
with
the
mobile
phone
that
everybody
has
in
his
pocket.
You
know
there
is
a
camera.
There
is
a
microphone
loudspeaker
GPS,
so
basically
your
entire
private
life
is
already
being
recorded
and
it
can
it's
very
in
many
many
cases
it's
uploaded
in
real
time
in
either
the
Apple
universe
or
the
Google
universe.
I
So
it
goes
to
how
do
you
turn
off
some
of
that
some
of
the
GPS
capability
who's
responsible?
For
all
of
that,
you
know
you
sort
of
the
privacy
knobs
that
you
want
to
have
and
what
does
that
look
like
so,
and
it
goes
back
at
then
again
to
convenience.
Do
you
actually
want
to
have
when
you
buy
ammo?
This
is
my
question
right,
hypothetical
question:
when
you
viable
mobile
phone,
do
you
want
to
have
sort
of
this
license
of
you
know?
I
You
should
have
understand
its
usage,
here's
how
you
put
privacy
controls
on
etc,
etc,
to
communicate
to
the
consumer.
You
know
as
a
device
manufacturer
or
as
a
service
provider.
I
mean
these
are
the
questions
to
ask
getting
the
consumer
to
understand
why
or
how
this
technology
is
used,
and
you
know
you
have
you
put
tracking
on
understand
that
you
will
be
tracked
at
location,
accuracy,
etc,
etc.
So
I
think
it's.
So
it
goes
back
to
a
an
area
that
I
amplify.
All
the
time
is
education.
G
Quickly
on
the
question
of
identity,
will
we
become
citizens
of
Microsoft,
Google
and
so
on,
as
opposed
to
deciding
to
be
citizens
of
a
particular
state?
It
is
a
very
good
question
and
I
think
we
don't
have
the
answer
to
that
yet,
because
what
we
learn
right
now,
in
addition
to
just
finding
out
a
lot
more
about
objects
around
us,
it's
also
a
lot
more
about
ourselves
and
our
interaction
with
these
devices.
G
Corp
governance
is
obviously
expanding.
There
is
that
threat
in
the
background
that
we
might
actually
decide
in
20
years
from
now
to
opt
for
the
corporation
as
opposed
to
being
the
citizen
of
a
state,
but
this
is
where
we
need
to
bring
in
the
rights
and
code
of
ethics
that
we
as
a
society,
decide
to
abide
by
if
we
want
our
society
to
not
be
transformed
in
ways
that
are
in
imaginable,
so
here
I
go
back
also
to
to
the
right
to
be
invisible
to
some
of
these
devices.
H
Still
on
this
question
of
awareness
and
the
impact
of
this
IOT
ism,
there
might
be
a
consequence
which
is
not
triggered
only
by
this
IOT.
Are
you
three,
but
they
may
amplify
it,
and
when
you
talked
about
collective
intelligence,
my
comment
is
about
more
individual
intelligence.
We
have
observed.
Studies
have
shown
published
this
year
that
in
developed
countries
over
the
past
two
decades,
the
results
of
IQ
tests
are
slowly
ramping
down
them.
The
reasons
given
explanations
given-
and
we
all
know
that
I
you
tests
are
a
very
questionable.
H
H
A
I
So,
just
really
really
quick.
Listen!
We
one
of
the
implications
of
what
Paul
said
is
that
we
have
information
at
our
hands
and
we're
seeing
that
constantly.
Maybe
it's
data
pollution,
III,
don't
know,
but
it's
information
at
our
hands
and
I
was
at
a
university
and
I
spoke
with
a
Chancellor
of
that
University.
What
the
Chancellor
said
these
these
students
have
so
much
information.
They
are
googling
it
quote-unquote
I
just
want
them
to
ask
a
question
during.
A
A
very
good
cold,
I,
apologized
producers,
who
had
questions
and
including
remote
participants
I,
will
have
to
end
this
conversation
with
asking
each
of
our
panelists.
You
just
give
one
line
I
so
take
away
for
the
people.
I
missed
something
in
this
conversation.
That
was
my
next
question
that
you
address
for
asana:
what
kind
of
governance
and
what
role
for
stakeholders
I
would
love
to
hear
you
talking
about
what
role
for
Daisy
was
like
I
ATF.
You
know
we
talked
about
proprietary
standards
of
Xhosa
and
then
what
would
be
the
role
of
ITF?
A
D
E
A
lot
of
coming
a
lot
of
is
coming,
and
we
have
to
understand
that
this
is
happening,
because
the
opportunities
for
new
services
are
huge
and
that's
why
there
is
massive
investment.
So
it's
another
revolution
that
is
upcoming
and
it's
better
to
be
prepared,
be
educated
and
aware.
Thank
you,
then.
Yes,.
F
G
H
We
are
at
least
I
have
been
a
bit
negative,
but
we
should
not
forget
that
any
major
breakthrough
as
its
own
drawback
and
remember
when
Socrates
was
absolutely
opposed
to
writing.
He
said
look
forget
about
these
bloody
things
of
writing,
because
if,
if
they
write
they
will
forget,
they
will
never
remember
anything.
They
will
believe
they
know
and
they
will
not
know.
This
was
his
idea
and
if
anything,
that
we
only
know
that,
because
Plato
wrote
it
yeah.