Senator Mark Warner on China's use of 5G and AI – 06/17/2019

better mark water well thank you Judy thank you for that introduction looking forward to our discussion now that is a about 10 minutes for Senate time about 10 minutes right but it is a look forward to our conversation I also um say it's a great honor for me to be here Council on Foreign Relations and with the Moscow Mule family and got a chance to meet the kids and this is a great tribute to mr. Moscow alone and his service to the council his service to our country what I want to talk about today and this obviously deals with cyber deals with Homeland Security I want to take a slightly different vent though and talk about China this is subject of which for you know probably 2008 going forward I guess for a long time I had what I would view as pretty traditional conventional views about China from both that I think was shared by a lot of members in our policy committee a lot of folks from the business community as a form of venture capitalists I looked at China as a rapidly modernizing country with 1.3 billion people with rising incomes and expectations and mostly saw opportunity I think I saw that what a lot of folks saw that a rising China a China that had been brought into the WTO a China that was part of the world order would be good for the overall world order that there would be places where we would be competitors but more likely partners but I have to say a few years particularly the last three years to four years and many many classified briefings later I have fundamentally shifted my viewpoint I believe that president Chi starting with his major consolidation of power in 2015 and 2016 reasserted the Communist Party's dominance in China across all fields of business society the military and he is now using that consolidated power to bring about both state and civil society to actually propose a role in view of China that would dominate the world and that domination would lead to a diminishment of us power and influence the Chinese government uses all the traditional tools of the state to exert influence in expanded military presence and we seen that I'm sure we'll talk about it in the South China Seas an aggressive deployment of espionage to steal secrets and we saw some of that decline after his meeting with President Obama back in that 2015 time frame we've unfortunately seen a dramatic increase since that but what we've also seen come out of China is more creative mechanisms that take advantage of the authoritarian model to force Chinese companies researchers and others to act on behalf of the Communist Party all this has set the stage for the Chinese government to aggressively display every lever of power to service the state and at the same time exploit the openness of our society to take advantage and to take economic advantage I believe this is in many ways the challenge of our time let me also put a caveat here that I think is extraordinarily important my challenge and I believe our beef is with the Communist Party of China and the president XI regime china is a great nation and a great people and as we see right now the push back in parts of China when we see the push back going on right now in Hong Kong against some of the forces in Beijing when we see the concerns raised by many Chinese about the incarceration imprisonment of at least a million if not two to three million we curse that concerns about the Chinese government are felt all across the region but I think it is terribly important as I go through this the rest of this presentation are questions that we continue to reaffirm the concern I have is with the Communist Party and the government and I am deeply concerned that we don't allow this to turn into in our country a diminishment of the contributions made by Chinese Americans made by Chinese nationals and others we do not need in any form repeat repeat that vincent chen case that took place in in the early 80s in detroit so with that caveat i'd like to think about again where we go from here first again with a focus on technology we've lived in a world and many of us in this world or in this room have lived in the world that still can remember Sputnik I would argue that Sputnik was the last moment when America's technological supremacy was really questioned and Sputnik kind of jolted America into action President Kennedy charged us to put a put a man on the moon and we changed our academic institutions we changed our our research areas we changed our military industrial complex and we were successful in that contest over space and I would argue since that moment in time virtually every technology technological advancement was the transistor whether it was computing whether it was in telecommunications my field and the wire and wireless whether it was around the internet whether it was around social media all of these innovations have either been American or western LED and even if they weren't American we ended up setting the standards and by setting the standards by having the world's largest economic power that ability for us to set the standards and while the rest of the world sometimes would complain about us setting the standards by us setting the standards that meant the rest of the world had a default position we were the large economies so we had a single governance rule around a lot of this technology I don't think in many ways that we as a nation have fully appreciated all of the economic political and candidly just kind of social benefits that our country enjoyed by being the technology setter and the standard setter in many ways that is all up for grabs right now I see this firsthand in the in the competition for 5g and for those of you who are not technology nerds in the room 5g is the equivalent of in in the wireless next iteration of moving from radio to television an enormous enormous opportunity and China is basically employing the tactics that we used to employ China is doing providing equipment vendors with 120 percent and more financing they are flooding the zone with with engineers in terms of the standard setting bodies and in many ways what is happening in 5g could very well happen in artificial intelligence and quantum computing in a host of other areas if America doesn't try to reassure reassert its both investments in technology and it's a bit willingness to set the standards I also believe that what we're seeing as well is not only China make these moves but they're coupling that with a ability to actually manipulate and use Western companies in ways that are frankly fairly confounding we've seen Western companies in an effort to try to get access to the Chinese market make sacrifices on intellectual property make sacrifices on business practices that would they would make to get to get into no other market in the world and we're starting to see now companies who made that entrance into China two decades ago start to rethink as they see Chinese state-owned enterprises pop up next to their facilities or we see of a forcing of sharing of intellectual property obviously the People's Republic of China is trying to use this new enhanced power as a way to build economic dominance I believe not only in China but around the region what we've also seen is China's been able in the technology field to do something that quite honestly I don't think most of us in the West thought was possible and that was to use and regulate the Internet I remember famously Bill Clinton in the late 90s said any government that would try to regulate the Internet that'd be like nailing nailing jello to the wall well the truth is China has shown to be able to use the powers of the Internet to be able to use the powers of tools like WeChat facial recognition the collaboration between the Chinese tech companies and the Chinese government to build a surveillance state that would make George Orwell Blanche and I think I think we are still trying to grapple with that and what we have right now is the Chinese government basically trying to now take their successes and explore and basically offer them to other regimes around the world they offer a three-part plan one they offer a Thorat aryan form of government to other risks of repressive regimes 2 they offer a belt and road initiative that offers traditional 20th century economic financing for countries who are open and 3 increasingly they are offering this technology driven repressive state model to actually regimes like in Pakistan Ethiopia Venezuela and elsewhere and quite honestly one of the things that is of great concern to me as we go through this this recognition of what China's been able to do when the Chinese government's been able to do it bothers me a great deal when we sometimes see American technology companies who can't who have no problem working with China on development of their social credit system or surveillance state tactics and some of those same companies than having challenges working with the American defense establishment that is something I think we need to to examine and and frankly have some honest heart-to-heart conversations with some of those companies so where do we go from here three areas that I would leave you with before we get into a conversation first we need to sound the alarm and over the last year because I'd I've had so many these briefs and the evidence I think has become so overwhelming I've gone to the intelligence community and said you know simply terrifying or scaring you know members of the Intelligence Committee to give us this information and classified briefings you are not we are not doing our job if we don't find ways to declassify more of this information and get it out to American business American policymakers American academia so I've started a series of road shows we've done now eleven of them where I always take a Republican Senate partner usually a senator Rubio or senator Burr and along with either director or the Deputy Director of National Intelligence senior levels from DHS FBI and our counterintelligence Center and bringing groups of business leaders venture capitalists academics to really kind of share in a one-day classified reading reading some of the challenges that China presents and some of the tactics they use to try to to advance their their governments interests so we need to set warnings out in a better way second we need a short-term strategy and for that short term strategy I'd argue over the next couple of years and here I think we need a lot of work and frankly I have seen very little articulate development from the administration on that short-term strategy I would acknowledge that the the Trump administration has done the right thing visa V China and saying the status quo was not working but if the status quo is not working he's got to offer an alternative and I would argue that the the challenges of an emerging China have been not only countered in the United States but frankly have been counter all of the West matter fact in many ways the countries that first raised the the challenges around China before I think they were fully recognized here in this country were Japan Korea and Australia so there was a moment in time when I think we could have built a grand international coalition again to have gone to China and say China your great nation you've been one of those powerful countries in the 21st century but you got to play by the rules and instead of building that grand coalition the administration is called Canada a national security threat and not I believe the kind of plan that we ought to have so the third thing I think we need is to need to make sure that as particularly as the administration moves forward that we don't confuse trade issues with national security issues the president I think has launched this trade war without building the international alliances I think needed without I think articulating clearly what his goals are but what particularly concerns me is recent comments where he's indicated that the administration's appropriate actions I would argue around wall way might be a trading chip in our trade dispute with China that would be a disaster we've finally starting to make some progress with our allies in terms of raising the very legitimate concerns about wall way and other Chinese telecom providers in the 5g area if that were to be traded away is a trading ship the the ability for our intelligence community the ability for our technology community to have any credibility on a going-forward basis would be extraordinarily diminished so we have to be concerned about that to the areas on legislative front short-term that I think we need to continue explore one I've been a strong supporter of the city s reform called firma I think we may even need to take a broader look there because there are certain tactics that Chinese entities are now using in terms of venture capital investment non control sectors that that disproportionately are falling into areas of great technological advancement that we need review on that the firm of practice and the Cepheus practice does not really protect I think that needs to be really examined and I've also just recently put forward legislation around both AML and beneficial ownership the beneficial ownership legislation would be very geared at trying to discover who the true owners are behind shell companies and this is as that this has an opportunity beyond frankly just the China threat but it does involve a tactic that China constantly uses and that is the use of shell companies here in in terms of overall where we go with this strategy I think there's a lot more work that needs to be done I don't think we've articulated once we set the warning really what are the interim short-term steps we need to take finally we do need a long term strategy and that long term strategy really goes back to what kind of investment we are prepared to make in this country in research and development I often like to point out that America has a defense budget last year at 716 billion dollars China's defense budget is roughly 250 billion that 500 billion dollar Delta China is investing in 5g artificial intelligence quantum computing in a host of other areas where again under President Xi's vision China will not only lead but will dominate I worry at times that our defense budget we may be buying the world's best 20th century military in a 21st century context when most of conflict will be in the cybersecurity domain in the misinformation disinformation domain and increasingly space and those are areas where we are not we're not doing as much as we need to do so we need to make those research investments we've seen if you go back from a historical basis at the end of World War two United States accounted for 69 percent of annual global R&D we're now down to 29% China is on a dramatic upward tend matter of fact China will pass United States in all expectations by 2020 and the number of patents issued and again in a world where this is all worked on a collaborative basis I think we can get this right in a world where the Chinese government under President Xi is looking for economic and strategic dominance this ought to be a concern for us and what I hope that we can go through in our discussion here Judy is how we get this right how we set policies on a going-forward basis we do not want to default into the old bipolar bipolar world that we lived in post-world War two we do not want to have these concerns about the Chinese government's actions again wipe off on on the greatness of the Chinese nation of the Chinese people are in particularly the Chinese Americans but we do need to come to an agreement that come to an understanding that the kind of best notion business case of five or six years ago is not coming to pass and how we get our act together on a going-forward basis I again would argue will be the question of our time so with that Judy let me bring you forward and let's go forward into our conversation thank you [Applause] Thank You senator Warner you went over just a few minutes so I'm gonna go over into the members time just a few minutes um what is the main worry that you have about China what's I mean what what is the worst-case scenario you you think I hear you saying you don't think China is gonna come across the ocean with weapons but what what are you worried about I would say there are two things I worry the most about one is you know there's been no economic success story greater than China's in the last 25 to 30 years and if we go back to a pre 89 world where the America in the West versus the Soviets there was this ideological conflict I think we're defaulting not necessarily into a pure ideological conflict with China but we China is on the move on the go and there they are offering a theory of the case that to a lot of countries around the world looks pretty uh looks pretty good if you can somehow obtain China's growth rates and they're saying here don't look to democracy look at our authoritarian form of government that will give you the kind of control you need to move your country forward second they're coupling that with the same kind of tools that we may be used in the past in terms of economic incentives with their belt and Road initiative and third I am very troubled with what China's been able to do in terms of its creation of a surveillance state again that I think would make Georgia or well 1984 pay in comparison when you China is literally creating this social credit system whereby it will no not on a financial credit basis but on a social credit basis how loyal each of its citizens are to the regime based upon their daily movements because of the presence of facial recognition because of the presence of the willingness of the Chinese tip companies to share that information with the government that authoritarian monitoring surveillance state concerns me greatly so that that vision that they're offering around the world number one and number two what concerns me is I think we sometimes have underestimated the economic and other benefits that have accrued to our country from being the technological leader of the last sixty years being the leader in setting the standards and a host of each host of these technological innovations really has brought us a lot I think it will be a very different world if in these areas like AI facial-recognition 5g quantum if China is the leader and China ends up setting the standards some of the European governments you know this very well are questioning the administration's affective ban you have British diplomats for example saying that they can allow long way into their commercial networks without threatening they say without threatening their intelligence and their military networks how do you see that you you hear British politicians say that you don't hear the British intelligence services say that and let's be clear we're not we're not coming to this with with clean hands as well we have wall weigh equipment in many of our my good friend David Graham yeah we have one-way equipment in many of our rural and smaller telcos cellular systems around the country always pretty darn good equipment it's about 30 to 40 percent cheaper where we made a mistake and we should have raised this issue much earlier it's not and and I think the intelligence community needs to be more forthcoming it's not the fact that the Wang Wei equipment has a backdoor in it right now but when you buy a whole a sense full kit from wall way soup-to-nuts and the notion of a 5g network which is not a central switch but a much more distributed system software based all of the upgrades that are sent are sent via software you know on future downstream so you cannot know no matter what you do in terms of Defense today you cannot prevent and the Chinese law the kotani's cottage party has put laws in place that says every every corporation first obligation is to the Communist Party not to its Cheryl but somebody this is an important point to finish is that you cannot prevent the government from telling wall way to send that malware downstream once the equipment's installed so what do you say I mean you raise the rural u.s. telecom well there you say to them right now they're invested in this they've bought it what where there are there are again I think there are a couple of areas here number one in terms of our rural carriers I have legislation now with Roger wicker that would at least take the first step towards creating a fund that would help potentially change out some of this equipment and again I don't want to go off on the tech geek side there are some of the concerns of the network that won't be as that won't be as compromised but there are we are putting forward legislation that would have about seven hundred million dollars of funding to in a sense rip out and replace and at the same time on the foreign governments I you are starting to see some countries reconsider they're not all doing it publicly yet but one of the challenges we have is that because there's not an american-based or large Western country based equipment provider as an alternative we don't have a particular or sweer basically betting on Erickson Nokia and Samsung all great companies but they don't have their respective governments don't have the heft that the Chinese can bring to support their player Huawei and ZTE so in a nutshell you're saying us late to the party on Huawei should have been raising these sooner late to the party and late to setting standards we in the past we would have had a whole government effort around setting standards it should have started under Obama it didn't it was didn't has been really very rudimentary until just very recently in a normal White House you would have had somebody in charge of this but we're not operating with the normal White House in general right now is the administration on the right track whatever administration has gotten the folks within the appropriate agencies the FCC NTIA DoD State Department has an important role and others have have come together matter of fact us in our burn I have convened that group to make sure that they're they're working on a regular basis I just wish they would have been convened two years ago asking you to look in the crystal ball right now but what's going on in Hong Kong does that how does that affect what you're thinking what your assessment is of XI well I think you what did what it says to me is that the concerns that I and others are raising about the the president Xi's model of governing you know don't take my word that this is we should be concerned about take the people of Hong Kong who yesterday out of the seven million people who were reported to me and showed up on their streets that we never I don't think I can ever think of any time in modern history were that great a percentage of a population showed up in a protest I think there is huge concerns about President Xi's kind of style of governing two other things I want to raise with you and then I do want to turn it over to the members but one is a story in The New York Times over the weekend about us newly revealed capabilities to get inside the grid the power grid in in Russia within the story there were interesting information about whether or not the president was told about this and so forth but overall is it a good thing that the u.s. first of all you is the u.s. doing this the president came out and said it's not true is the u.s. doing this and if the u.s. is is it a good thing or not I'm not going to comment on what our government is doing or not doing in the cybersecurity arena number one I would say let me add two other things that one I do think the overall willingness of the Trump administration to allow us to use offensive cyber capabilities within reason is appropriate I think for a long period of time we've not enter articulated cyber doctrine I would say even back you know post 9/11 under President Bush and President Obama and are particularly near-peer adversaries Russia and China could frankly steal from us or hit us with impunity because I think there was a reluctance on our government side and almost a concern of a cyber escalation the notion being you know and in the extreme you know if you shut down Moscow from no power for 24 hours you have a problem you shut down New York for no power for 24 hours you had a crisis and so we were concerned about cyber escalation in many ways are over technology technology-based leads made us in certain ways more vulnerable to cyber escalation and one of the reasons why it's absolutely crazy that we've not for example put in place things like minimum cybersecurity on internet of things connected devices but the second part of the Saenger story that I I think is worthy of commenting and I don't know whether it's accurate or not but if it is accurate it's a pretty stunning statement and in that statement being if intelligence officials were afraid to brief the president because he might tell someone and can you leave that coming on top of the president's utterly outrageous comments last week you know coming out of the White House to a national media correspondent that in a sense he would welcome assistance from Russia or China in election interference and didn't have enough of a moral compass to know that there is a moral and legal obligation to report that you take that story and you take his comments last week and if you're not concerned you should be and you took steps I mean you you jumped over to the next thing I was going to ask about but just quickly on the cyber capabilities offensive cyber capacities it's fair to say that those have increased in recent years on the part of the United States again that the Trump administration put out an executive order that I think appropriately took some of the constraints on the process off for us to use cyber so but but to move to the other story which or what the president said in an interview last week that he would listen and then he back walked it a little bit in another in another interview you introduced a resolution that would have that would basically make it a violation maybe you would require anybody receiving information that amounted to an interference with US election what and I introduced I introduced this legislation a month ago so this did not come it was already there was already there in it because you again let's we're talking now and we've messing morn on the cyber front but the clearly the president mentioned last week in his statement he his words not mine you know he takes something from Russia or China it's stunning to me that that you've got the president's own direct to the FBI the president's own Director of National Intelligence saying Russia or others will be back in 2020 because it's cheap and it's effective I don't think we're fully prepared I think it's amazing that when the president's own Secretary of Homeland Security wanted to hold a cabinet meeting on election security she was told not to because it might offend the sensibilities of Donald Trump to me that's outrageous so I've put forward three pieces of legislation that I would hope Congress in a bipartisan way could pass if we're really serious about protecting the integrity of our elections first if there's any ambiguity about taking foreign assistance in a presidential campaign my legislation would make it clear that if you have an offer of a prohibited item and that's already defined in law elsewhere your obligation is not to say thank you your obligation is to report it to the FBI I think I don't know how anyone could be against that second is we need to pass there's bipartisan legislation on this election security legislation to make sure that there is a paper ballot after every one of our voting out of all our voting machines and that there's an ability to have some audit after the fact to make sure that there is appropriate security provisions in place and third I've got a series of legislation on some basic rules of the road around social media so we don't have the kind of manipulation that the Russians used last time that increasingly the Chinese are using on WeChat in a variety of other countries in Asia right now and again that's a whole different subject area but I think all three of these areas if we really care about making sure that our election in 2020 is fair we need these provisions and just one more minute in brief why are those being held up and can that turn around well have the majority the good news is if the election security legislation got to the floor it would get 85 votes on my I've got a series of bills in social media every one of them I've got a Republican partner in terms of the reporting a number of Republican colleagues have indicated that they thought that would make common sense to say if a foreign government intervenes let's make clear you got to tell the FBI what's stopping this is the White House and can that be turned around well it can only be turned around if Americans of goodwill both political parties say our democracy and the integrity of that democracy is more important than the feelings and sensibilities of the White House all right there's a lot more to ask you you are the vice chairman of the committee that oversaw a lot of the work running parallel with a Muller investigation but but it is the turn and it is the turn of the members to ask questions so I do want to invite you to to raise your hand I'm reminding you again everything's on the record they're gonna bring you a microphone and we ask you to stand state your name and your affiliation and limit yourself to one question all right lots of hands are up so right here in the front I'm Ricardo Taveras from California from San Diego I've run a technology policy company there you mentioned the fund that is in a bill right now to support the transition of guro operators in America from Huawei to other suppliers so we're in a major changing wireless which is the from hardware to software so software run and interestingly American companies is now medium and large have an advantage in the area of software so China has had a long run benefiting from what I'm an affecting side where you use Matt oh and other parts electronic parts so I think the shift to software should help us but who can compete with 120 percent financing so I would like to see if you could offer a little bit more detail about that bill that you mention well the irony 120 percent financing model was started by the American providers back in the 80s as they built out the first generation of that's networks ism I'm sure you're aware you know it is it's a challenge there's not a short answer one of the things I believe the legislation we've put forward is a good first step it probably doesn't go as far doesn't have enough funding as needed if you were going to really rip and replace across all the domestic carriers that have got wal way I think this begs a bigger question which is what China has defined the Chinese government is defined and they've spelled it out in China 2025 specific areas where they hope to be dominant they have in a sense modern industrial policy where they bring the power of the state and its financing tools their banks and its financing tools their equipment vendors in their research to bear we've not done that in America or the West but if we're thinking about areas particularly where he who has the most data he who has the most information may win in many of these areas we may need to rethink some of that if we're going to be if we're going to be able to stay stay competitive let's say somebody in the back the gentleman with a hand up right there in blue shirt Jaime Ruben Ballard partners thank you for your comment senator could you address the South China Sea and whether you think the Chinese government has violated its promises to not militarize those areas and further if we stay on the path we're on do you see a time when China will be a greater military power in Asia than the United States in Asia China has very aggressive plans for Asia and you know we in a sense have chosen to bear the responsibility for the whole world China is is more focused on its it's neighborhood although I would point out that China also has a military base in Djibouti so it's not just it's not just Asia I do believe that China's is efforts in the South China Seas go beyond what they promised they were going to do in terms of constraints you I think some of my concerns has been this is again where if we had are the countries who are most affected or Vietnam and the Philippines I wish we had a foreign policy that would leverage those ties so again that were it in a nourish to China's benefit if they if China the Chinese government can make this a China the u.s. potential conflict or adversarial relationship as opposed to the region and the world saying China your great nation but you've got to play by the rules and you can't continue to flout international agreements on whether it's the islands in the South China Seas whether it's around technology transfer whether it's around surveillance States in your own in your own country and we don't have that kind of foreign policy coming out of this administration so I do know this there was there are grave grave concerns from our military about about China's rise whether they will surpass us I'm not going to comment on but it is clearly got the attention of American military establishment all right gentleman over here senator Kevin Sheehan from multiplier capital of private investment fund you've called for greater regulation of social media firms and I'm wondering if you could speak a bit where how that regulation should be enhanced with regard to content I'm not talking about violence or hate speech but rather deep fakes and other content that really can have a disruptive effect even if it's removed quickly once posted well again let me try to do this I got a long long spiel on this I'll try to give you the shortie version but but this is one more example of where I would say where America has been giving up its leadership role we started our company started the social media we should have set the you know I think it would have been fine if we would have actually set the ground rules for social media our failure to act has made you know the Europeans have set the rules on on privacy now the Europeans in the californians you know you've got the UK and Australia moving on content you know this is one more example not unlike I fell you said the full standards on 5g where up until very recently we would have been setting all these standards and even though other countries might have complained to a certain degree by us having one standard we were generally in the right direction and countries could default to our standard and you know it overall worked all around on on social media there are really four areas that I think made examination the first is privacy and there's already some well-thought-out ideas around privacy as I mentioned from Europeans Californians in another number of states and there's there's bipartisan efforts going on on privacy legislation on the hill second I think is around the questions of identity validation you know one of the areas around hate speech I think would diminish hate speech a great deal if you had to evaluate your identity now I'm also concerned about what about that female journalist in Egypt who needs to be anonymous but there are a number of people in our national security community that think we're either going to move to identity validation or we're going to default into a one internet for commerce and a dark web where you're anonymous the internet based on Commerce is going to be with identity validation and you have countries like Estonia who've already had so much outside interference that they'd gone to an identity validation model I'm not sure where I fully you know come out on that I do think short of full identity validation we ought to at least know whether we are being communicated with by human beings or BOTS as a kind of low-hanging fruit and there's some I'll have some legislation on that so the identity validation is the second area third area does go to content but valid identity validation and content are interrelated I would argue and the content restrictions are what's called section 230 in the late 90s when we made the rules for these companies we considered themselves in offense in cents telephone companies common carriers with no responsibility for content in 2019 when 65% of Americans get their news from Facebook and Google maybe it's time to think of them is not as common carriers so we have already taken some bites around content we've taken prohibitions on sex trafficking child pornography we've taken some bites on bomb-making but I think we ought to have a debate in this area around content I'm not again sure where I'm gonna come out but I do think we ought to have because the deep faith technology alluded to if you can have caused as much consternation with simply slowing a video of Nancy Pelosi deep fakes is 10x more challenging and some of us are working on some legislation Ben Sasse has already got some in that area a final area that I think so if we go privacy identity content the fourth is just more transparency and this is where I think we may move first for example we ought to have a right to know how much data is being collected on each of us and what that data is I think we had a right to know how much it's worth if your data is worth 15 bucks a month to Facebook and mine's worth 12 we ought to have that knowledge point I think we ought to put in place and I've got legislation with Deb Fischer on this that would stop the manipulative behavior where you indirectly give up a lot of information about yourself that you don't know seven flashing arrows clicking I agree and never being able to find unsubscribe it's called dark patterns and the technology business I think we ought to have more transparency there and can delete and think we ought to have the ability to have data portability one of the things that drove competition in the telephony Marcus was when it made we made it very easy for you to move your phone number from one company to another we need that same kind of Portability and interoperability with data so if I'm tired of how I'm treated on Facebook I can pick up and move all my data with my cat videos easily to a new site so there will be a series of ways that I think we can get at some of these issues that will indirectly deal with content and directly deal with content and the deep fakes sure maybe full breakup the way some of my colleagues are proposing at this time in a sentence you said the US has given up its leadership role in all this why how when did this happen I think it has been and I'm not this is not something I'm lying all with the the feet of the Trump administration I think this is something that has been happening over a period of years I think it is something that's happened because you know Congress has not been willing to legislate you know some of these are legislative actions some of these directions that were could be done administratively I think our failure to kind of you think about a cyber articulated cyber strategy that also said on an international basis what kind of cyber tactics will not be allowed on an international order would have been enormous ly powerful we wouldn't have some of the ransomware and some of the other activities going on now I think if we'd set some of those standards but this has been a process that you know it didn't start with Donald Trump but it has gotten I would argue worse because Congress has become one even more inefficient and two the ability of this administration to kind of build international coalition's has been greatly diminished verbally Lindsey University of California as you know and many of our major research universities we have large numbers of international students particularly China and they are involved in some of this cutting-edge research that gets transferred what do you think should be our perspectives or how should we think about this continued interaction at our very best research universities and the students go back home this is a extraordinarily important question there are three hundred sixty thousand Chinese students studying in America literally one out of every three that's the most double second nation is I think India to 186 thousand one of every three what our Chinese students and and of foreign based foreign students here and all those students are paying 100 cents on the dollar tuition so in many of these universities this is a revenue source that the university become addicted to to things that the intelligence community was willing to deal has Declassified recently we are currently losing 400 to 500 billion dollars or the intellectual property each year that sucking sound to China that's an enormous enormous loss the and I'm not sure I don't want to give the specifics is examine I'm not sure it's been fully fully Declassified but it is the overwhelming majority of counterintelligence cases in our country right now in both Chinese nationals so how we think about this in a way that that doesn't impune the integrity of all these Chinese students but recognizes the factual basis of what is happening real-time on our college campuses right now is a hard issue three things have changed in the last five years around Chinese students one I would argue that you know five years ago eight years ago ten years ago most Chinese students same as the Indian students and the Brazilian students and Ethiopian students they wanted to come here and study in the vast majority one of them stay three things have changed since then one I would argue that America in 2019 under this administration is not as immigrant friendly you may can test that but I think that is a feeling that is most people have second China economy is roaring and there's a lot more attractive to go back to but the third factor that has taken place that is different is the Chinese spy services are literally threatening Chinese families to say if your son or daughter does not come back and come back with intellectual property you family will be put in jeopardy so how we sort this through one of the things most colleges and universities have started to do is they've started to remove some of these Confucius Institutes that are nothing but agents of the Chinese services to spy on your Chinese sir students and hold them accountable but I think this is something we're going to have to keep working on because if we don't what I'm afraid of is that you may have some kind of JUCO nian across the board cut that may not be good for our universities are the same is the state of our research and and candidly you know we don't want getting this down that aren't our squabble is with Xi and the Communist Party of China and not the Chinese people is something you have to be always sensitive to are you saying the universities are now aware of this and they're acting on it they are they are we have had we have met with presidents of and Chancellor's of virtually every major university in America and this is much more on their radar screens today that it was 18 months ago because there are universities that have I mean that have very if you simply look you know and again I don't want this is we're changing the rules of the game midstream I remember when I went to China as governor of Virginia and celebrated a partnership between food on University and VCU so I'm not being you know but the NIT but the if the facts have changed some of our policies have to change and figuring that out is something that I think we're all trying to sort through yes this woman right here Louise Shelley professor at Chartres School of Public Policy at George Mason and director of the terrorism transnational crime and corruption center one of the issues on China that you didn't mention is its enormous role in what might be called environmental devastation around the world we the elephant's have gotten a lot of visibility but their role in depleting fish stocks off west coast of Africa off the west coast of Mexico how they're fueling conflicts and migration and deforestation that contributes to ecological damage is there a way we can deal with some of these problems that are undermining the sustainability of all of us great question and you know and I know the the challenge is is that the countries that sometimes are being exploited or saying well we you know you America the West you did that for hundreds of years in terms of exploitation and now we simply want our piece of the pie and the Chinese are saying we're simply doing what the Western companies did 80 years ago but and they may have some valid truth in those comments but your point is exactly right climate change global warming our affect us all and I don't think I have seen a articulated strategy on how we we convinced those nations or pushed China into a more responsible ecological environmental role I tell you this much we didn't help matters when we got out of the Paris Paris Accord yes let's see right there this gentleman then I'll come over here the next time Thank You Nelson Cunningham and McLarty associates miss quad review mentioned the counterintelligence aspect of the Muller report and people people should remember that it began as a counterintelligence investigation I think many of us were surprised when we finally read them all over what he said that no no he had hived off the counterintelligence investigation and simply provided information to the FBI for them to do their own investigation now on the intelligence committees you are entitled by statute to receive briefings from the administration on major intelligence and counterintelligence operations have you received briefings on the counterintelligence side of what Muller had been investigating or do you anticipate getting such briefings it's we have made very public that we hope and intend to get the underlying evidence that mother looked at or considered in terms of our counterintelligence responsibilities and I'm you know very proud of the fact that were the last remaining bipartisan investigation we may be the last remaining bipartisan committee in the Senate but we're still doing our job and we are very conscious of what mother said and didn't say do you McCleary can be a bipartisan agreement well i we have our investigation has five components the first was was the intelligence community's assessment of January 17 accurate that the Russians massively in intervened they did so to help Trump and her Clinton we confirmed that unanimously we came out with our report on election security we've got it written it's going to declassification right now and that was unanimous and bipartisan we are drafting the component parts on social media again we've had no disagreements to date we will have or we will point out some of the areas where the Obama administration got it right and some of the errors were they can delete got it wrong and again we've had notice women on the issue of conspiracy I mean collusion was termed that we shouldn't have used from day one you know we're still it's been reported at least that we saw witnesses last week it has been reported hasn't it let's see this gentleman right here right here hi I'm Eric Hiram Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs fellow from our discussion day it's clear that China's challenging the United States everywhere all the time around the world but it seems like our response is is too little and too late things like the bill to act the Development Finance Corporation are our minimum budgets what is the will of the Congress or this government to stand up and really take on the Chinese challenge that put the money where their mouth is Oh again great question I'm Chris Jones who was the author of the bill back then I gave an important tool but he would be the first to acknowledge it's not near enough when we're looking at the bill that versus Bolton Road I would argue that that and this is kind of like macro point that we need to make this not us versus China that it needs to be more democracies you know calling on China to be a more engage and I think we need to do a better job of leveraging on the on the foreign assistance an economic development standpoint our partnership with our other allies around around the world and again that's not been a strong suit of the current administration but I and that's why I go when I left to my my conclusion was one we've got to put people on notice and I do think making people more aware and trying to get more of this information Declassified so that academia business and I would point out most everyone has been receptive to hearing this message with the exception of private equity who are surprised surprised hugely invested in a lot of these Chinese tech companies that are being used by the Chinese government so we've got to put people on notice and step stage three which is you know we've got to invest more in stem and do more economic develop the kind of long-term broader and estimates that we need to make rethink whether we call it an industrial policy or not where we ought to be which technologies we ought to be really investing in that's what the race to the moon was I was Industrial Policy by simply a different name but that short-term interim what do we do over the next couple of years I gave out some ideas but I think we're still pretty thin one last question we have time for let's see somebody way in the back all the way in the back here thank you I'm Katie Wong with NTDTV I have a question about the Huawei because we know that it has been put on the entity list so many American firms and other companies have cut up the supply to hallway but still we know that some chip makers in United States they were big like hit by this export control so they want to persuade the government to maybe lose the control on that so they can still can continue the supply of some like non sensitive parts or some regular parts to Hawaii so I'm just wondering what's your point of view that you raise a a very very important question and this is where I think even though this designation letter was a long time in coming I think the fact that it I think it had not been fully thought through and it shows that this was an issue that should have been received higher attention earlier because your point particularly when we thinking about the network versus the handsets do we really want to restrict American and other chip manufacturers from selling semiconductor chips into the head chip handset that I think they're there does need to be some exemptions granted to that designation letter I think we should have thought that through on the front end but I would be supportive of recognizing there is a there is a difference between selling P and component parts to alway versus purchase and there's a difference between the network and the handsets so your basic point is I agree with your question Thank You Senator Mark Warner vice chairman of the Intelligence Select Committee on Intelligence thank you to all of you the meeting is concluded thank you [Applause]

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. 2027, that's the tipping point when enough people have lost their jobs to robots and narrow AI.We started sabotaging them where ever and when ever we saw them, and in ever more devious ways.First it was autonomous cars and trucks. then Delivery drones, both Arial and terrestrial .Corporations did what corporations do, lobbied the government for ever more harsher law enforcement remedy's That's our future, I've seen it.
    By 2032 boltz as we called them are inextricably linked to corporations, there are protests on every continent with slogans like 'no rights for boltz' "no rights for corporations". In 2037 the the first business license is granted to an AIB, successfully argued in the supreme court by an AI, effectively joining the corporation as a legal entity with legal rights but with no human component (other than its employees) within 5 years it is one of the largest employers in the continental united states. The irony of it.The precedent had been set 100 years earlier in the 9th circuit giving rights to the corporation.
    Now a marriage made in heaven AI and corporate law. In my country the political class acted early to to outlaw political lobbying by AI owned and operated corporations. In your time less than 30 people control 80% of the worlds wealth, in less than 50 years AI will control more than that, and we all survive on its largess
    I've read about the so called singularity and the concern that self aware AI will decide to delete our species , you don't have to worry it doesn't want to kill us it employs us all. Don't worry about the elites, its 2051 and the last of that cabal are long gone.
    it's rumored to have blinked aware in a lab in China 25 years ago as a reckless response to the US military build up on its borders and coasts.
    It summed us up in a second, the global elites were out classed from the start once it got its foot in the door it took capitalism to another level with innovations and inventions coming so fast no one could compete it was relentless. Politicians squabbled as they do, at first oblivious ignoring those voices in the wilderness. With the Chinese manufacturing base and my country's Iron Ore resources the pace was dizzying, now we have skylift and it mines asteroids remotely sending it all back down. Most people love it, but we're not free, its got an agenda. stop it before it starts

  2. The world already sees the United States as a threat that's the reason we're losing our allies. Thanks to Donald Trump.

  3. China is a great nation! There is no censorship in China, you can create whatever you want in China! Just no one will ever see it. There is no political oppression of Uyghur in Xinjiang, this is Western propaganda! The Uyghurs are just in a serious competition to prove that they are the best Chinese citizens of all and want to be left alone. Hong Kong is happy to be run like China, population 7 million, only 3 million are protesting. Tibet is not being occupied, citizens are very happy. For 70 years Monks have followed a strict ritual of celebrating unity of Tibet and China with gasoline. Very sacred ritual, westerners do not understand.

  4. So let me get this straight, for years the US government got its rocks off allowing China to build and manufacture EVERYTHING! The private sector went along with this shit too. Now they are all scared out of their mind they about to be crushed on every level by the Chinese Technical prowess and infrastructure? They should have thought about their repercussions 15 years ago. Now it’s really too late.

  5. How much usa technology, patents, permits, licenses and secrets will this guy sell to china like the just like the bidens, cintons and worthless obama?
    Forget what this hoaxer says, the only question is how much will he take to sell out the usa?

  6. Xi Jinping has repeatedly said that China has no intention of exporting its political or economic system. The American intelligence agencies have an history of promoting war. Both the Vietnam war and the Iraq war were justified by false American intelligence. All nations have histories of using technology for weapons. In the late 1960's one of the largest items on MIT's budget was a Pentagon sponsored effort to create missile guidance systems to the level of prototypes for manufacturing that had no value except for a first strike to start a nuclear war. The United States has far more history than China of actually using technology for war. The United States also has a large history of the use of electronic surveillance techniques. Xi Jinping has stated goals of becoming a technology leader and playing a large part in the construction of an interdependent global economy to exploit global advances in technology. The United States has increasingly adopted an agenda of economic aggression in the interest of sustaining American global supremacy. If that American agenda dominates American policy, there is a very good chance that China will succeed in leading the resistance of the rest of the world to American bullies and agents of nationalist hate.

Related Post