tv Charlie Rose PBS February 1, 2016 12:00pm-1:01pm PST
>> rose: welcome to the program. we begin, of course, with politics because the iowa caucuses are on monday. and we talked to matt dowd, carol lee, al hunt and dan balz. >> the problem for theis, is thd wins the nomination, and hillary clinton clinches the nomination you'll be having people running who are distrusted and not liked by the majority of the country. you pick between the two you really don't like or trust. that opens up the avenue for a third party candidate. >> rose: we continue with scott malcomson talking about the future of the internet. his book is called splinternet. >> there was no other state that could come close to developing it the way the u.s. could. what happened later and what's happening now is that gradually, as the internet became
economically and militarily and politically so important and so threatening states, if they could, the largest states reasserted their authority and they are trying to reassert it as much as they can now. >> rose: we conclude this evening with a footnote about one of our frequent guests mike allen who appears weekly on charlie rose the week. mike announced today the he is leaving politico and play book after the end of the election to go in pursuit of another newventure. he has been a good friend of this program and will continue to be on this program and here is what he said when i asked him about the change. >> i'm there through the election. we used to think that 2008 because the election of our lifetime. now i'm starting to think based on our conversation today this is the election of our lifetime. >> rose: politics, the internet and a change at >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by: >> rose: additional funding provided by:
>> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide. captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> rose: the 7th republican debate took place in des moines iowa last night. it was the final debate before monday's caucuses. senator ted cruz and marco rubio used this debate to attack each other. particularly over immigration reform. >> this is the lie that ted's campaign is built on and rand touched upon it that he's the most consert e[8 guy andeveryone else is a . the truth is ted throughout this campaign you've been willing to do or say anything in order to get votes. >> i mike marco, he's very charging and very smooth. but the facts are simple. when he ran for election in the state of florida, he told the
people of florida if you elect me i'll lead the fight against amnesty. when i ran in texas i told the people of texas if you elect me i will lead the fight against amnesty. we both made the identical promises. when we came to washington we made a different choice. >> rose: for the biggest news of the night was donald trump's conspicuous absence. >> before we get to the issues lets address the elephant not in the room tonight. >> i'm a maniac and everyone on this stage is stupid, fat and ugly. and then ben, you're a terrible surgeon. now that we've gotten the donald trump portion out of the way. >> rose: trump held his own debate. his fund raiser for military veterans allowed trump to air his grievances. >> i didn't want to be here, i wanted to be about five minutes away. and i've enjoyed that, i've enjoyed that. all the on-line polls said i've done very well with that, with the debates. i got a kick with it. but you have to stick up for
your rights. when you're treated badly, you have to particular up for your rights. >> rose: joining me is matthew dwowd chief political analyst with abc news, carol lee the whitehouse correspondent for the "wall street journal" and from iowa al hunt of the bloomberg news and dan balz of "the washington post." i am pleased to have all of them on this program. al i go to you first. any consequences coming out of what we saw last night, a debate without donald trump and donald trump and his own show. >> charlie i suspect not as much as people suggested today that conventional wisdom teamed to be that trump did well, it was true and smart. i don't think that was thee7 ca. we had a three way republican race with trump and cruz and marco rubio coming on. i think that was the case 24 hours ago and my guess is that's the case in 72 hours. >> rose: dan. >> i agree. these debates have an impact for 12 hours and people get back to normal and begin to make their
choices to turn out operations and start cranking up. i think al's right. for the most part it's still a trump and cruz race. rubio has at least some wind at his back let's see how much it turn out to be. >> rose: it is said a lot of undecided voters wait until the last minute obviously. what does that mean. 20% of the caucus goers that wait and decide at the very end? >> i think at this pointed, that number may even be a little bit. this wisdom i do agree with, if there's a huge republican turn out, 180, 190,000 that would seem to favor trump. he's bringing out new people who haven't voted before. if it's a convention good turnout, you may want to put a little edge for ted cruz he's got clearly the best organization ground game analytics whatever one wants to call it out here. >> rose: tell me about marco
rubio and how he's coming o he got the endorsement on the des moines register. >> i think the biggest winner of the debate was marco rubio. and donald trump maintained his lead. i think ted cruz really suffered through that debate. and i think marco rubio right now has an outside chance at finishing second in iowa. >> rose: and behind. >> behind donald trump. and if he does that, the race is over for ted cruz and marco rubio then goes to newáu hampshe with a huge head of steam and finishes a strong second then it's a to person race, the two person race we thought it was with cruz and trump becomes a two person race with trump and rubio. then i think trump has to wonder did i do myself a favor by not showing up for that debate because i just gave lift to marco rubio. >> rose: i keep reading things if in fact donald trump wins in iowa he may be instoppable. of course he's far ahead in new hampshire. >> yes. i mean, that's the conventional wisdom on that. and certainly once you get, move from iowa into new hampshire, new hampshire's a very different
race than what you're seeing in iowa. there's a little more flexibility for some of the folks who are not doing very well in iowa. you know, depending on what happens out of there, it could go on for some time. you could see a state by state combat where certain states are not taking all of their fighting over different delegates. it's going to be, i think if he were to win iowa and then new hampshire, you know, potentially the concern is he could be hard to take down from any of those later states. >> rose: the battle with the trump precipitated with fox news. was that intentional, did he want to not do this debate and he wanted at the same time to confront fox news and show he was donald trump and no one was bigger than he was. anybody? >> well, i think, here's what i think about donald trump. i think a lot what he does is accidental and then it turns into a good strategy because
what happens in it. i think he's probably the most politically astute and media savvy person that's run for president in years. in our modern lifetime. >> rose: politically astute and media savvy. >> he understands modern politics, modern campaigns better than almost anyone running for the rains or running the campaign. >> rose: he understands modern media coverage and how it's changed dramatically. >> i think what donald trump has done is eliminated the party for organizing vehicles for candidates. the next thing he's doing is eliminating fox'qi news as the decider of who those candidates are. if he goes on to secure the nomination in the course of this process which right now he's heavily favored to do. the odds arehe on him. the republican party as it existed is no longer and the ability for media vehicles like fox news to control the process, it's severely hampered. >> rose: dan i used to hear up until rec%ly9! people saying my god, donald trump for
president. that's a terrible idea, i can't live with it. it's never going to happen. now they say yes, it could happen and yes i may find myself because of the alternatives voting for donald trump. do you hear that? >> well you do hear that. but charlie, i think part of it has to do with people trying to decide whether if they think he's going to be the nominee, they've got to begin to become comfortable with it. i mean matthew may be right but at this point he would be favored to win the nomination. but if things change and they always do once the voters are heard from, there's going to be some twists that we didn't expect. if at that point donald trump doesn't look quite as strong or formidable as he's looked over the last six months, you will get a reevaluation on a part of a lot of those people saying i think i could be comfortable with them and some of them are saying we really don't want him as our nominee. there are some twists ahead on this race depending what happens in the next two weeks. >> charlie i agree with dan. i think my pal matthew is too
quickly dismissing cruz and too quickly koronateing trump. i talked to some anti-trump and what their rational is he really doesn't believe in anything owe maybe we really can do deals with him. maybe he really doesn't believe in some of this stuff he's saying so it won't be so bad and then they'll say we're not sure we believe that. >> rose: lets' me push my esteemed colleague. -- >> i think if you take a look at this process i'm not saying ted cruz doesn't have a route, i think his route is very small. and marco iraq ohio has a raul and it's very small. if you take a look at the process and how it unfolds, if donald trump wins iowa and then goes and wins new hampshire bringing and then goes and wins south carolina. no non-incumbent president
republican has ever won iowa and new hampshire, ever. george bush didn't do it. george herbert walker bush didn't do it, bob dole, mitt romney. non-incumbent president ever won that. the problem you unfold in this process as soon as february is over, it becomes a national primary. it's no longer state by state. february is state by state. we have 20 states vote in the first eight days of march. whoever has momentum at that point is going to sweep those states. >> rose: are they more likely to be towards donald trump because of his views on immigration and guns. >> i think at that point it doesn't matter. these processes are judged by momentum and whoever has momentum going into march 1st in those 20 states whoever has that is going to win a majority of those states no matter where they are. >> rose: carol. >> in terms of the republicans in general becoming more convertible voting for trump, when you talk to folks in washington, republicans in washington they feel that way because they think he's better than cruz. they just don't want ted cruz.
we had a poll recentlyshowed the way. they are more increasingly comfortable with or can see themselves with how the question was posed votintrump but i thint that it matters there's going to be a lot of twist and turns and remainltz to be seen -- remains to be seen how they will actually vote. >> rose: if donald trump wins in iowa his election to lose and he will to inflict a mortal wound on hi does. >> up to a point. but this is a long process, and matthew laid out a couple different scenarios. one, if trump starts to run the table here and goes into new hampshire and south carolina, that's one. but as matthew said, it's possible perhaps that marco rubio finishes surprisingly strongly here. that would set up a different dynamic. or if ted cruz wins in iowa and donald trump the man who has won everything loses the first one, then we've got a third dynamic.
so i think we can sketch out where this race might be going but until we actually know what the order of finish looks like here, how strong anybody looks compared to some of the others, we're still guessing what the republican electorate down the line is going to do. >> charlie can i ad one thing to what dan just said. everything we learned about american politics has been turned you side -- upside down in the last six months. why shouldn't we think the same thing will happen in the next six months. i think the lessons we learned in the pass may not be applicable in this year. >> if donald trump taking himself down inflicting himself is like the python. he comes at you, donald trump seems that way and doesn't seem iz make him go away.i think don- >> rose: he can shoot somebody in fifth avenue and supporters will be with him. >> 80% of his voters are solid.
i think it's somebody catching fire and i think the most likely person that could catch fire and take donald trump down is marco rubio and not ted cruz. ted cruz is disliked by all his colleagues and everyone in his establishment. >> rose: he uses that as his weapon. >> it's a badge of honor in iowa. >> the voters want to like you. i think that's the path that takes donald trump someone catching fire like marco rubio. >> rose: you guys disagree with that on iowa. >> likability is so important, how come richard nixon was a national ticket five times? >> i agree with,)l charlie, i agree with matthew in this way. i have always thought that rubio was playing a strategy to get hot late. and that has often been the key here in iowa. we saw with john edwards in 2004
in roaring up and almost beating john kerry in the final days. i always that that was the rubio strategy, to hang back, not to peak too early but be there at the moment when people will say this guy may be the guy. i think that's what he's trying to do here in iowa. he's run some very iowa-specific advertising here aimed at christian conservatives trying to cut into what cruz has and what carson has. so we'll see the extent to which it's successful but i think he's the one candidate who has thought about being able to try to do that. >> the other thing is we see in the media like we don't totally understand and have predicted things not correctly going into this cycle so i think it's going to be fascinating what happens in iowa and what happens in new hampshire and will probably learn that we actually didn'tyq know something that was going on. that's the way it's been. >> rose: what could the surprise be? >> i don't know. but one of the things our reporters are hearing on the
ground in iowa for instance is that a lot evangelicals or some evangelicals are breaking for trump who lack college education because of the economy. and so one of the theory is that perhaps the economy is trumping what would be a traditional conservative religious values voters. that's a trend that you see moving forward, that could be a very interesting dynamic in the republican party. >> rose: so al let me shift to the democrats and hillary clinton and bernie sanders. if this is the year of surprises, could there be another one on the democratic side. >> yes, i don't know what the surprise would be, charlie. there's metaphors about this race being as tight as something or other. iáaulocked in an almost dead evn race out here. i think like the republican contest it will depend a large part on turnout.
if there's anything approachingt what barack obama achieved in 2008, boy i would put my bet on bernie. if it's a more normal type turnout, she might have a slight slight edge. >> rose: any reason, drawing the kind of crowds he has, will he have the same kind of enthusiasm on caucus day and the turnout for him might be just that. >> charlie, i've made a number of calls to people here in iowa. there's an old line a race in iowa sometimes comes down to say organization versus momentum. i think a week ago you would have said clearly that bernie sanders definitely has the momentum. we've seen the size of those crowds. they are not diminishing. what he gotdoesn't affect iowa t what he got in minnesota earlier this web was pretty astounding, 20,000 people combined two events. but there's a sense here that over the last three or four
days, some of that momentum may have begun to dissipate. now these are people reading tea leaves so take it for what it's worth. people believe in the organizational battle that hillary clinton has a somewhat better organization. a slight edge on that. so if sanders can create the momentum and find a way to really get the new people as al was saying. then he has a chance to win here. but i think in both campaigns, there's a sense that right now she has a very slight edge. >> i think the fascinating thing about the iowa caucuses is this could go on each side in two totally different directions. on each side it could be either a very short process that iowa sets it up to)process on the ree depending on what happens. and on the democratic side. if hillary clinton wins iowa i think it's very hard for bernie sanders to get any oxygen. he'll win new hampshire but then there's no where else for him to go. if he wins iowa, then that process goes out for a much longer period of time. the national polls begin to
close. that's what happens when you get momentum he will have won two ates in a row. the night of iowa is going to tell us is it short, is it long. on each side of the aisle. the other fascinating thing we haven't mentioned jeb bush in the course of this which is the race to $100 million. and had a right good debate. berdz -- bernie sanders is goig to win more caucuses. and this went no where close to what we thoughtwñ six months ag. >> rose: carol last question from you about washington. what surprise will you looking for? is it turnout or is it what. >> i think turnout. it matters as everyone was saying, it matters for hillary clinton versus bernie sanders. i think the other thing the eye of organization is bernie sanders really organized. hillary clinton has a lot of the obama folks working for her and
has learned some lessons, she's done this before. and you know is whether or not bernie sanders can translate what he has, his enthusiasm into something actually on the ground is a big question. >> rose: carol thank you so much. >> thank you. >> rose: stay with me for a moment here. looking at this race so far having the experience you've had in politic, the trump factor. is it as some say reality television? is it he's a different kind of campaigner. you said he was politically astute. is it somehow that he is less politically astute that this is a moment where the country and a personality came together? >> i think it's all of those things and then you couple with that the fact that the establishment part of the party, the structural establishment of both political parties is completely disrupted and fractured. so there's no longer really elders in charge of the process that can control some mechanism to say this is going to go this way or go that way. we are at a point especially in
the republican party where there's no longer that control anymore. you take that person who understands social media, that understands how the press covers things. he understands it r-yaeáñ well. and he doesn't rely on paid political -- >> rose: and he relishes it. >> he is more available to the press than any other candidate. >> rose: i love polls and he has the capacity enough to engage in a conversation with the people in the audience. it's television but especially these large gatherings to somehow say let's just talk about what's going on. i'm told he goes to the podium with maybe four or five points. >> he writes notes on a piece of paper and then he goes off. i think the lack of discipline he has could catch up with him. that's usually when you make errors, that's usually when you don't do things and not talking about the concerns of the actual voters. but he struck a chord or he's captivating that's been in this country for a few years that he
was totally dropped into. i think part of it is donald trump for many people represents amo,+ the gop, we can go back o the country that we always love. we're not going to be able to go back but he somehow convinces them, that we can go back and be a country that we once were and all of those things. >> rose: some people have said this may be the year if trump has the nomination. or even cruz has the nomination. and hillary clinton having gone through a tough campaign year and have some real questions raised and some things hanging over her head having to do with the e-mails, that this might be the time for a third party candidate. ad mike bloomberg, you got somebody that can afford it and somebody that's been in politics and somebody could attract a lot of smart people to work with him. >> i think this year is set up to be the perfect year and that actually is going to be an accelerator for independent candidates. $around the country. i think this is going to accelerate that process. the problem for the country is,
is if donald trump wins the nomination, it's still a long time to go and hillary clinton clinches the nomination you're going to have two candidates running for president who are disliked by the majority of the country and distrusted by the majority of the country. and then we're going to say american public pick between these to two who you really don't like or trust. that opens up the avenue for a third party candidate. i don't know if michael bloomberg fits that perfectly. i think they're going to explore that. >> rose: is there somebody else. >> i think a bunch of people will consider. >> rose: who might be on that list? >> i think the founder of starbucks should consider it. he's somebody that's talked about community. but i think the problem for third parties not at the state level is the electoral college. when you look at the electoral map and you see certain states of the republican they'll win automatically and the democrats there's really not a lot you can add up to 270. it can help somebody else win. it could slow the lengthtorial vote to the u.s. house of
representatives if nobody gets 270 but this is a year that sets up really well more so than 92 for an independent candidate. >> rose: you think an independent candidate could win? >> i think an independent candidate has a very outside shot at winning but an independent candidate will certainly change the process. >> rose: if it goes to the house which is controlled by the republicans and it's the current house that gets the vote andío vice president is selected by the senate. in it goes to the house, those republicans, do they have to by definition vote for a republican. >> they have to vote for one, they have to vote, the constitution says you have to vote one of the three top finishers for president. so you have to choose between dawbled trump and hillary clinton and let's say michael bloomberg. they have to pick one of the three. at that point i don't know which way they'll go because they actually have to think who would be the best president. and i think we'd have, i'm hoping it doesn't get to that point. i think we have a serious
constitutional crises at that point if it got thrown into the u.s. house. >> rose: what's the crises. we've been there before. >> the crises becomes nobody reaches a majority of the vote. the popular -- >> rose: whatig you -- >> i think the constitutional crises, do we have a constitution and do we have a structure that fits the current dynamics of the country and i think a lot of people are going to wonder if we do. >> rose: what might happen then. >> well, i'm hoping that the choice people make they're going to be popular and somebody turns out to be a dominant leader, i'm hoping. i don't know what they do then because they're so frustrated right now with the system. >> rose: is it a combination. >> i think it's a combination of mood and frustration and disenchantment with the way current politics is run. at some point the model has to change the current political model has to change. he might be a catalyst if not this year certainly in 2017 and 2018. >> rose: michael thank you.
>> thanks clawrly. >> rose: we'll be right back. stay with us. scott malcomson is here. he's a media fellow at carnegie corporation. he new book is called splinternet and how he traces the growth of the internet corresponded to military and intelligence needs. earlier this monthfr whitehouse and intelligent officials met with tech industry leaders. on their agenda was the use of social media by terrorist groups. encryption is another concern for law enforcement as companies who is getting the government back to access. i'm pleased to have scott malcolmson at this table for the first time. welcome. >> thank you. thank for having me. >> rose: trace for us how the internet began. and how it was in a sense tied into the intelligence and military issues. >> well, it's a story that's usually traced to the period after the second world war and particularly into the 1960's and the cold war. what i do is i take it a little bit earlier because really computing itself came out of the
war time experience of world war i really at that time. thomas edison had a line of an interview in the "new york times" where he said killing men in war is a scientific proposition. and that was a realization that -- >> rose: he meant by that what? >> well he was thinking in particular of chemical war. which was characteristic of the first world war when the germans began chemical war and the british were included and had to react with their scientists very quickly. so the idea of mobilizing the scientific community with the military community in order to prevail came out of that experience. in terms of computing, i mean the first big innovation of the first world war was in radio. there were two engineers again in britain, willie knuckles and frank:z jordan who invented one switch capable of memory. all computers since then use this thing without which
computers couldn't remember. and the american contribution, the big american contribution also began in world war i in terms of naval warfare because battleships were the major mega weapon of world war one. the power of the guns had increased steadily to the point where ships would have to fire at each other without being able to see each other. this created an extremely low hit rate for the ships. what americans worked on together with the british was if you try to create a virtual reality of war. so they could imagine successfully where the enemy ship was going. that required taking an enormous amount of information about each ship and perfect information in computing it very rapidly. the phrase computers was used for people who could do math and in the military context the people who made the tables with all that information were called computers. so when you had the first -- >> rose: people were called computers. >> they were called computers. up until the second world war, there were about nearly 150 people employed in the second world war by the army as
computers. simply to look at these numbers and calculate the numbers. where the machine comes into it is machines were eventually built by american engineers that were capable of taking those variables and improving the fire, what the military called fire control. that command and control system with the machine crunching numbers at the center started in world war i and that metaphor of using a computer in order to valuate a virtual environment needed to prevail militarily through aiming your guns better. a metaphor continued when there were no longer battleships. then it bake airplanes!f and rockets and missiles and bombers and so on. really up through the cold war. that's kind of the first major stream of development and it goes on for decades. >> rose: many people have seen the movie the imitation game about alan -- and he understood to break the code he needed a machine. is that part of this history. >> it is.
it's not as central as the movie kind of suggested. in fact he was very involved in war time computer science including the united states as well as in britain. the work that was done in cryptography and another feel was definitely is an important part of the history of digital computing and the history of the internet that came later. the essence of it which is a very american thing a command and control system with a number crunching computer that's able to create a world so that you can hypothesize so you can make more accurate guesses. in the 1960's you had a much more familiar story which is the sort of desire of the military industrial complex in the united states to develop system that would be able to anticipate things coming, bombers potentially nuclear weapons and shoot them down, take countermeasures before they got close enough to bring their payload to the united states. let's the support of ultimate form of that command and control metaphor that started in 1916.
it was that work in the 60's out of which came the internet as we know it, through arpa, later darpa. >> rose: but that developed the condition of the internet. >> utopian vision of the internet really developed if you are in the geek worldñ4 in the late 1950's out of m.i.t. and very much out of california. >> rose: you hear a lot wherever it developed and this certainly was not the development of it. but additional reasons was steve jobs. a lot of it is steve talking about the potential and the pire, can you believe, this mission to talk about the power of the computer. >> he was fantastic. he loved narratives and he does a great, i think it's a great little bit in the book about his very very early involvement with this thing called blue boxes.
and essentially it's a crazy story but there were these blind kids who co-hearcould hear and t the code of the telephone companies through tones on the phone line. they were able to communicate and make free calls and stuff over the phone lines. there's a great piece by ron and he tells jobs about it and they are building these little machines that could for non-blind people, little machines that could send the signals over the lines and communicate. there's a bit that job was talking i think in the 80's about the very beginning about this machine. >> rose: it's in the documentary. >> oh, right, right.rd and jobs in this interview he
gave, he started saying how fantastic it was to talk over the phone lines. at that point you're like okay, that's steve jobs, that's awesome. that's that period of extrema summism in the early 80's and early 90's. then he says the power you felt just in your little home you could affect thing all over the world and manipulate and control them. that's like megalomania is what that is. and then he finished by saying this was a real vindication about the power of ideas. and i think one of the big screts is it combined so much money so much idealism so much technical creativity and complete ignorance of its own will to power. that ultimately that kind of power was real power and it would go back to the real world. it wasn't just in the world ofless altos or palo altos. maybe they wouldn't have worked as hard as they did and as
successful as it was. in california, i love that spirit. >> rose: what was the merger between what was going on in the military and venture capital? >> it really began right before the second world war there was a guy named george dorio. frenchman harvard business school, he is generally thought to be the father of venture capital. he tried to get it going in the late 30's, didn't really work but during the war as the war is getting going, he was brought in by the president to essentiallyc be in charge of research and development for the military. he ended up spending a fantastic amount of money, lots of moon shots, throwing a lot of money at a lot of different projects. some of them work, a lot of them didn't. after the war he started the first non-family venture capital named ard in an early computer manufacturer. the example basically migrated
out to the west coast. you take money and shoot at a lot of projects. you have civildunderstanding of. the result hopefully is some of the projects really take off. most of the people who built that in california which in turn built silicon valley had military experience. one of them general anderson had directed the bombing campaign against germany in world war ii for example. another one tommy davis had been the enemy lines. therehñ were lots and lots of military connections around stanford and the venture capital world. >> rose: and other people got a big start there too. >> yes, absolutely. i think the main thing is that in an environment of total war, you suddenly have the investor so to speak who is willing to spend a lot of money on very intense projects without respect to a lot of divisions that hamper creativity in non-war time.
and it is not that bothered if fantastic sons are wasted many that's what world war ii rnd was and that's what silicon valley rnd became. >> rose: tell us about today. they hold the key to cyber space now but with the rise of china and other places there's increased competition in cyber space. >> i think i would start in the 80's and 90's when the internet had been built. it worked successfully, but nobody really cared. the research community, the army got tired of it and went off to build its own systems and it existed in a kind of scientific project among universities. >> rose: where they could talk to each other. >> where they could talk to each other. it was sort of a geek paradise. it remained that until it could be set free politically by the end of the cold war.
once that happened, it became possible to develop in a way that wasn't threateunited state. >> rose: 89, 90. >> talking about 89, 90, exactly. that period of american political which we thought was indefinite at the time or many people thought was indefinite at the time made it possible for something as fundamentally threatening to the state of the internet to develop. because there was no state, it was controlled by united states. there was no other state that could come close to developing it the way that the u.s. could. what happened later and what's happening now is gradually as the internet became economically and militarily and politically so important and so threatening states if they could, the largest states, we asserted their authority and they are trying to reassert it as much as they can now. >> rose: this is pieces from the book. >> yes. they want to take the authority away. >> rose: exactly. what impetuse to the edward
snowden revelations add to this? what did edward snowden say to other countries? >> to other countries, i think he said he legitimized their conviction that the internet was not the free cyber world. >> rose: and that america's superiority was a threat to them. >> yes. >> rose: because america had the capacity, i'm asking these questions. america had the capacity to spy on them to much greater degree than they had to spy onoo$! ame. >> i think they knew that beforehand. i think what snowden did was he made it apparent to public opinion. and it was no longer, it was no longer paranoia to say the americans are doing in and oh well everybody now knows the americans are doing this. the other very big effect it had wasyg in silicon valley itself. there had been about a decade of before snowden of relative agreement between the military
intelligence agency of the united states and with the major silicon valley companies that their relationships were ones that were stable, didn't really have to be worried about wouldn't do a lot of damage to each other. they could be negotiated privately basically. and what snowden's revelations did was it told the whole silicon valley subculture that they were serving something that they hadn't been aware that they were. >> rose: part of something they didn't know. >> yes. something political. contrary to their cyber dreams. >> rose: contrary to their political ideas. >> yes, very much so. >> rose: because some of them were at variance too. >> yes, absolutely. snowden had a huge effect. i wouldn't say perhaps it was the effect it intended to have but political effects are never the ones you intend. >> rose: and whole recognition or confirmation of what america was capable of. >> but snowden, i believe at
heart is a geek. and geeks don't want the internet divided. but the effect of these revelations or one major effect of it is that the internet is being divided because russia and china and india and the europeans feel justified in taking a much more active role in trying to shape the internet for their own communities and for the world. >> rose: tell us whatwant to do do it. whether it was russia or china. a big aspect of this is sovereignty. there is in the culture of china, for example and in the political dialogue, it's none of your business but we do. we don't want you coming in here and doing things to a dialogue or transaction with our citizens. we want control of that. correct? >> yes, absolutely. that is exactly what they're asserting. there was a time when i think the calculation in china and russia and elsewhere was that the internet was so out of their control and absolutely
imperative economically that they couldn't do anything about it. but now they can. companies are willing to play ball with these different governments. the governments see that they can have more control. >> rose: and decided to keep the companies in terms of what #h"buand the trust with others. >> what you have now particularly in china is that you have technology companies that can now rival american technology companies in terms of their innovative ability and their size. >> rose: and the chinese government helps those companies. not in terms of state control. >> nobody's entirely -- >> rose: sorry you tell me you're the expert. they will argue and will make the case i think that what china does we don't do is we're not acting in the interest of private companies where aspects of the chinese government will
encourage and be in favor of corporate espionage or espionage for the benefit of chinese corporations. the chinese deny that, but thatç is a deeper felt concern among american companies. and i think the american government. >> well, he's much more better about corporate -- >> rose: you know the chinese are doing things to benefit private companies in china. >> i think that's absolutely true but i think the bigger conditioner now is chinese companies benefit the government
of china. alibaba is not a tiny little company. they use the information that chinese isn't putting in when applying for a bank loan and so on into a system that will produce kind of a rating. this is so that people who couldn't get loans would be able to get them because it's too small but the fact it puts that into a situation that the government controls. it's not at the behest of the government by these companies. the chinese government couldn't do that on its own but at this point you have chinese companies that are so large and have so much information from their citizen that they can then become and be used by the government to control the chinese. >> rose: the central theme ofsplinternet is simply s now want to control the internet. >> yes. yes. and hopefully, i mean i think there are ways to, if not oppose that trend, to put brakes on it so that for example through
internet governance and through some mild agreements between governments which the obama administration and xi jingping are doing. i think that will help. but where cyber space would sort of trump physical space and where borders would be erased and you know, these weary states would fall by the wayside and sovereignty will no longer exist i don't think will happen. >> rose: the trend is in the other directionargue. >> yes. >> rose: exactly. to what end? how will this play itself out? the internet web splintered. >> there will be a splinternet. i think that there is first of all i to think that the cat is to some degree out of the bag. there are ways to get around state surveillance. >> rose: you hear from them
even though they have control of the internet. >> right. and the sort of internet community, the sort of global keak subculture is not going to just sort of raise the white flag. i mean there was a subculture that's been global since the late 1950's that is dedicated to open code and to open communication. they're not going to stop that. they preserve the public space for all of us. hackers always get, you know, criticized and everything and of course they do lots of terrible things. but it's an unrecognized global culture that does keep these things alive. the second thing is i put a fair amount of faith in just can'tism. all alibab wants to be a huge company. it's not doing that because he only wants to sell to chinese silt suns. google and facebook all these companies want to be global
companies. that's one reason why i think silicon valley reacted so strongly against these efforts, an cryption in the post snowden period because they see an enormous threat to their income. they see an enormoustheir incom. so those are large companies and we don't want to be run by corporate power but in some ways it establish a space of freedom. >> rose: do you think apple is right? >> yes. i think apple's absolutely right, absolutely right. mike rogers came out in favor of it the other day. >> rose: totally in favor. >> he said arguments about no end to end encryption are just not worth having. >> rose: so the debate about encryption mike rogers said is not worth having. i missed that. >> yes. he said that this is, he was speaking at the atlantic council a couple days ago and he said these are units end tond encryption. there needs to!g be end to end
encryption. >> rose: he attacked apple encryption efforts saying it's not up to silicon valley to decide whether encryption is the right thing to do. that should not be the decision of silicon valley. my impression is, you'req3x: ddtr= 9how could i -- >> there are a lot of decisions that i suppose might be better left to a democratically elected government but that simply isn't the way it works, not with the internet and not with companies on this scale. social media membership is another one. >> rose: most of those people out there including tim cook, including michael rogers. my impression is that and secretary clinton just spoke to this and other people have spoken to this as a political environment that there is a real effort to find some common ground here. and that is not all or nothing.
>> i think that's right. these arguments have been going on since the 90's. they keep coming back. the chip argument and the back door argument are not fundamentally different. this is a power struggle between large companies and government over who gets to decide certain things. >> rose: and you think companies. >> i think on the whole they have done a better job. they have a better track record with it. >> rose: you say companies. >> if i had to pick, yes, absolutely. and they have a bigger interest in it. >> rose: what is the cloud add to all this? >> i don't think it makes a huge amount of difference except that in terms of cyber security. what the cloud makes possible is you can locate information that's very very difficult for an attacker to find. and so in that sense it's
extremely important. and it's very important commercially. >> rose: listen to this your friend your advisor to his book said the people that use technology are the ones who need to define its role in society. technology does not work on its own after all. it's simply a tool. we're the ones who harness its power. that seems to be an argument that the people should decide and not the company. >> i hate to be put in a[j position of disagreeing with that. >> rose: that's what we do. >> yes, yes. look at the encryption debate. you have different factions making different arguments. steve is real demonstrate gaggic about this. they say if you don't have
encryption everybody in your family will be unsafe and that's irresponsible. somebody that could be elected. a corporation has a motivation to make sure that encryption doesn't happen because they have a commercial motivation. the political motivation to center and do all kinds of things can be extremely powerful. i mean, ifwz you're going to hae a site on every single piece of technology, it's just typically not going to happen. >> rose: at the end of the day you're saying rather than trusting the democratic process to do this, i trust a few corporate executives to do this. >> i trust the worldwide geeks culture that demonstrated commitment to open communication across borders for decades. >> rose: encryption policies come from those people running those companies.
it's not a culture. these are people. >> but this is what i'm saying. these are lots and lots of people who have a track record of defending certain things one of which is secure open communication. and i think they'll continue to do that. governments motivation is generally speaking can go towards and come inside. china is a quarter of the world's population and the government is determined to restrict and monitor the communication of many of its citizens as possible. i guess you should say china should have an elected government and they probably wouldn't do that. theoretically it's true. >> rose: the interesting point and you make this point that it is also the authoritarian government, they want to be in control. but india is not an authoritarian government, world's largest democracy. >> yes. india's policies on this is very much a work in progress. but on the whole they certainly are if not yet shown the
tendency towards serveship and towards surveillance that either russia or china has shown. >> rose: scott malcomson. the book is called splinternet. thanks for being. we'll be right back. stay with us. >> rose: let me ask one last thing. you're in the news. there was an announcement today, tell us as much as you can about, you're going to be at politico at the place where you are at playbook until the end of the campaign season, until the end of the election? >> yes, charlie thank you for asking. this is going to be a new era for politico. so politico started nine years ago when john harris and jim were at "the washington post" kind of invite me along on this crazy adventure. i was then at "time" magazine and the idea of a website that covered politics seemed a little nutty and was certainly risky. those two guys saw a futureway . they were kind enough to bring me along and now split co-which
was three people in the sun room at the alexander house is now 450 people around the world with news rooms in brussels and albany and trenton and tallahassee. at the end of the election i'm going to move off on another add venture. the ceo of -- the head of our business -- was the one that cracked the code on a media business. on the subscription side of the business and helps us fund the great journalism politico does. so after the election the three of us are going to head off on a new adventure but i'm there through the election. we used to think this was, that 2008 was the election of our life time. now i'm starting to think based on our conversation today this is the election of our lifejb time. >> rose: all right. people want to know if there's some division within politico. because mike and jim wanted to go off and do something on their own in an entrepreneurial way or was there some different vision
at politico. >> charlie that's a great question. yes there were some stories on-line. there were differences with our publisher robert from a great family who made politico possible. robert is a huge believer in the growth of politico. he made the europe project possible. our expansion into the states this year, and today he stood in the news room and politico saw they built 350 people here in d.c. he was hungry for growth, hungry for hire and wants to grow mor. jim and opt pure guys wanted to go off and start something of his own at a time of huge opportunity, decided to go do that with him. but first we're going to spend the next year making politico as awesome as we can. i met with our team today and they said how can we keep politico strong and i said wait to do that is to be at the top of our game every day. so charlie what i promise you and your viewers the best
politico playbooks ever this year in this amazing historic and fascinating politico year. >> rose: mike thank you so much for joining us. and good luck. >> have a good weekend. thank you. >> rose: see you back here for the rest of this politico year and then further. >> thank you sir very much. >> rose: thank you for joining us. see you next time. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org
"film school shorts" is made possible by a grant from maurice kanbar, celebrating the vitality and power of the moving image, and by the members of kqed. sh, how i wish you were here. we're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl, year after year, running over the same old ground. what have we found? the same old fears.
wish you were here. ♪♪ man: it's like holy mother of comfort food.ion. woman: throw it down. it's noodle crack. patel: you have to be ready for the heart attack on a platter. crowell: okay, i'm the bacon guy. man: oh, i just did a jig every time i dipped into it. man #2: it just completely blew my mind. woman: it felt like i had a mouthful of raw vegetables and dry dough. sbrocco: oh, please. i want the dessert first! [ laughs ] i told him he had to wait.