>>Marc Goodman: Good afternoon.
It wouldn't be an overstatement to say that technology is changing the world.
Duh.
That is something we all know here.
But what I would like to point out is technology is not the exclusive domain of the good guys.
Criminals, terrorists and rogue governments all have access to these very same technologies.
Try to get the presentation on the screen.
There we go.
And so that's where I focus my energy and intention.
I believe that now is the time for us to reset and rethink our position on global security,
and how its changing in the 21st century.
Not just for ourselves, but for future generations as well.
My background is informed by my prior work.
My position is that of somebody who worked as a police officer, works on global security.
I've worked with INTERPOL, the United Nations, and NATO, and 20 years of putting handcuffs
on bad guys around the world helps you think a particular way.
And I've seen criminals be quite innovative.
In the early days, I noticed that criminals were entrepreneurs, but today, thanks to technology,
we're seeing a paradigm shift in crime.
In the old days, very simple to be a criminal.
You go out and get a gun or a knife.
You hide in a dark alley, and when somebody comes by, you point the gun and you rob them.
It was a good business.
The startup cost was low.
Set your own hours.
Be your own boss.
But criminals had a challenge.
How could they scale?
How to grow their business, just like all entrepreneurs.
Well, technology answered that question with an innovation which was the train.
When the train was invented, nobody envisioned train robberies, but now criminals could rob
not just one person but 2- or 300 people at a time.
Of course time marches on, technology grows exponentially, and the Internet allows for
even greater access.
How many of you remember the Sony PlayStation hack from a few years ago?
In that incident, over 100 million accounts were compromised.
Think about that.
Think about the scale.
Never before in the history of humanity would it have been possible for one person to rob
100 million people.
That is the asymmetric nature of the threat.
And it's not just about cybercrime.
There are other forms of cyber aggression.
Back in 2007 we saw the nation of Estonia aggressively attacked via the Internet.
It's government institutions were taken offline.
Its financial services, offline, and even ATMs.
As a result of that, Estonia today is a world leader in cyber security.
But that's not just about computers.
There's also human factor.
We all know about the benefits of crowdsourcing and flash mobs.
A bunch of people get together in the town square and start singing and dancing.
But let's dissect that term, flash mob.
Two parts of it, flash which means fast and mob which means something really bad; right?
Flash mobs can be used for good or for ill, and as Jared alluded to we recently saw an
attack just last week where a flash mob turned into a flash rob.
An international network of criminals, in just ten hours, was able to process 36,000
transactions in 27 countries, taking out over $45 million in cash.
Pretty good day's work.
Technology doesn't stand still.
New technologies are coming online, like robotics and quadcopters, and of course these, too,
will be as ubiquitous as the mobile phone.
I asked myself how would criminals use these, and we already have our answer.
Recently at Her Majesty's prison in the U.K. at Elmley, quadcopters were used to fly mobile
phones and drugs over the fences of the prison and deliver them to prisoners.
That's a paradigm change.
No matter how high the fences are, prisoners are able to fly quadcopters over that.
That's going to take some changing, okay, of our thoughts.
Other technology such as 3D printing are allowing for the printing of 3D weapons.
It doesn't matter if you have arms control in the U.K.
If you have a 3D printer, you can print the gun here.
And Defcad has something called the Wiki Weapon Project whose goal it is to make it possible
for anybody to print a gun at home.
Of course, as 3D printers get bigger you'll be able to print bigger and bigger weapons.
So in a world that is connected by technology, and increasingly borderless, if you have one
of these devices our old global security paradigms don't work.
Guns, guards, borders, blockades, embargoes, it doesn't make a difference in this new world.
And the Internet is moving forward very quickly.
Metaphorically, today our Internet is about the size of a golf ball, but as we transition
from Internet protocol version 4 to 6, we will go to an Internet that is the size of
the sun.
78 octillion possible connections, which means we'll be entering the time of the Internet
of things.
Cars will be connected to the Internet, and some already are.
These cars will be hackable.
And even implantable medical devices, like pacemakers, cochlear implants and diabetic
pumps are connected to the net.
There are 60,000 pacemakers in the United States that have an IP address and are connected
to the Internet.
That means they can be hacked remotely, and a shock can be given to a heart when it's
not needed.
That means for the first time ever, the human body itself is subject to cyber attack.
And those numbers will only grow.
Up until this point I've been talking about computer attacks, ones and zeros and silicon.
But the fact of the matter is other operating systems can be hacked.
Like DNA, the original operating system of life.
We used to just be able to read DNA but now we can code in it, we can write.
And when you can do that, you can do amazing things for good, like create personalized
cancer treatment.
But you can also create new forms of bio weapons, pandemics, and synthetic bio (indiscernible)
raise significant questions about privacy and new forms of life.
And I think that also there will be a fair amount of crime, which, as Jared mentioned,
was the topic I wrote about recently in WIRED.
I think in the future, bio crime, now that we can code in biology, may be as commonplace
as cybercrime.
It's clear that if you control the code, biological or computer based, you control the world.
So what do we do about this?
Well, I don't want you to think I'm a total pessimist.
I do see some rays of hope in all of this, some little, little ones.
So what do we do?
I November this is not the answer.
In response to the innovation shown by the terrorists on 9/11, this is how the government
innovated.
This is not going to get us anywhere; all right?
And there's a fundamental mismatch between the speed of the institutions that we've created
for global security and the rate and pace of the threats.
Crime is purely international, and yet law enforcement, as an institution, is strictly
nation based.
And tell me if you think this is true.
I believe that there is no police agency in this world that could possibly respond to
27 countries, commit 37,000, 36,000 transactions and remove $45 million from ATMs in ten hours.
There's no government agency capable of doing that.
So what do we do?
It's time to get our butts in gear; okay?
Quite frankly.
New institutions and new innovations will be required.
We need to start crowdsourcing the solution.
Organizations like Ushahidi out there that are using Crowdmap to investigate security
threats, everything from election fraud to trafficking in human beings.
During times of global crisis, organizations like Crisis Commons are coming together to
map out disaster relief and literally saving lives with these new technologies.
And the Organized Crime and Corruption Project in eastern Europe is using crowdsource investigations,
both journalists and citizens, coming together to crowdsource proxy companies, front companies,
dictators, where they're hiding their money, their bank accounts and their cutouts.
This is the type of new institution that we need.
And while we have a World Health Organization for real-world viruses, we don't have one
yet for cyber viruses, and we need to create that institution, something that can respond
not just from a law enforcement perspective but from a public health perspective, because
this technology is and will be affecting our public health.
In 1829, Sir Robert Peel created the first professional police force, the London Metropolitan
Police.
That was over 200 years ago.
Professional police meant we're in charge and you people stand back while we take control
of things.
I think 200 years later it may be time to rethink that model.
I dedicated my life to public safety and try to help the world be a safer and better place,
and it's difficult for me to admit that everything I've learned may not function in this new
world.
It can't just be the police and the public.
It needs to be the public as the police, working together to crowdsource our own common global
security.
We need more collaborative forms of law enforcement, because robotics, artificial intelligence,
nano technology, synthetic biology all proceed at Moore's Law pace, doubling every 18 months
in speed and price performance.
Public policy and law does not follow Moore's Law, as you may have noticed, and so we need
to come up with better solutions.
In our ever-more connected world, we need to rethink our approach to our common global
security.
We need to have massive foresight in a world that's so connected.
78 octillion devices on the Net.
Our threat surface area is expanding massively, and now is the time to mitigate against those
threats.
We need new forms of collaborative governance, and I think Google Zeitgeist is a great place
to start that conversation.
Thank you so much.
[ Applause ]