>> Moderator: What is in terms of what's going to happen next the best possible outcome, the worst possible outcome and the likely outcome you think will happen.
>> Speaker 1: Well of course I tend to focus a lot on Washington and what policymakers are doing and how well they understand these issues. So in my ideal world they have a good understanding of these issues; and they have a good understanding of these issues and they make some decisions based on their understanding. I'm not someone who says government shouldn't be involved but I think they're invariably involved but when they are involved, I want them to know what the issues are in particular to consider privacy and civil liberties. Worst outcome of course is that people don't know what they're doing, they disregard these concerns and they go ahead and act anyway and a lot of that happens. You know well it would be tempting to say well the likely outcome is going to be somewhere in the middle; in some places that's true. But you know it's a fascinating area because I think for the people in Washington who really take the time to understand it they can come up with some innovative stuff and if they can commit people behind them who aren't afraid and have a bit of political will, you might actually see some smart ideas coming out on the policy front so that's what I hope happens.
>> Moderator: Richard?
>> Richard: Well I think the best possible world would be one in which we stop telling every company that has to master cyberspace and putting the owners assumed spelling on individuals and putting the owners on every company. And we do a little triage of the problem; it seems to me there are three problems and government is well-suited to address those three problems--one is cyber war and I think we need a public strategy and we need arms control.
>> Moderator: And punishment against defenders.
>> Richard: Well two yeah that's part of the arms' control. Two is to deal with the cyber espionage problem because we really are losing our competitive advantage; and I think the government can deal with cyber espionage without telling every company that it needs to master cyber security. And the third thing is to go after cyber crime and have real punishment for the international sanctuaries for cyber criminals. If you look at those three problems--cyber war and the risk that we run from the instability there; cyber espionage and we know who is doing that and there are ways of using all of the powers of government to go after that; and then finally going after the cyber criminals as part of an international cooperation mechanism. I think government can handle some of those three issues fairly well but we need focus on them and not just to wave our hands; and there are lots of cyber security problems and we expect everybody to do their bit.
>> Speaker 2: I agree with Dick. I think those are important objectives. I actually think that comprehensive cyber security strategy actually addresses that. I'm glad it's been declassified like two years ago I said I thought we ought to talk about it publicly but now we've got it implemented and I think frankly we ought to do it on steroids. So my best outcome is we do that and the second part of my best outcome is people in the private sector identifying an opportunity to think out of the box with alternative technologies that will address this issue. My worst fear is we wind up talking about it a lot more and assuming about it a lot more we don't do anything about it.
>> Moderator: Or in Dick's worse scenario had a really big call for action.
>> Speaker 2: And I would like to believe we're going to get the best. I think though it's in our hands to push us to that outcome.
>> Moderator: Right and you think that's achievable. You think your scenario is achievable?
>> Speaker 1: I think it's achievable if we have limited goals and we focus on it rather than trying to solve all the world's cyber security problems at once.
==== Transcribed by Automatic Sync Technologies ====
