- Okay, sir.

- Thanks so much for being here.

I've been wanting to ask this
question for a long time,

and I think you're the
person to answer it.

- Alright.

- So as reported by The
Hill, Wall Street Journal,

Bill Clinton has sent two
emails in his whole life.

Hillary Clinton quote does
not know how to use a computer

to do email, unquote.

Lindsey Graham has
bragged that he has

never sent an email in his life.

This is very unnerving to me.

- [Cara] It should be.

- Especially, a lot of people
describe the legislation

around tech as sort of
in the Wild West era.

And to me, it sounds like
the people that would

be regulating it
are regulating cars

and they still use
a horse and buggy.

- [Man at Table] Okay.

- So you see real consequences,
like you touched on earlier,

like the FBI-Apple debate,
where a lot of these guys

were so out of their depth.

I think Lindsey Graham
actually came out about a month

and said, "I was wrong."
- [Woman] Yes, let me answer.

I think I know your question.

- So you want to get
to the bottom of this.

- So my question would be,
am I being way too cynical?

- [Woman] No.

- And is the only way to
change it running for office,

like you're doing?

- Yes, I urge you to run for
your Austin city council,

or whatever.

So here's the problem.

Lindsey Graham did say
that, and actually I said

something on CNBC
about it, like,

"Let's not get
invites from someone

"who doesn't know how
to turn on a computer."

He was pontificating
on the FBI issue.

- [Man at Table] Right.

- And emotionally,
it was ridiculous.

I was like, you are out
of your depth, you need,

it's a very, my whole
issue with it was it

was a complicated issue.

And it's very
complicated, it's not just

a little complicated,
it's quantumly done.

Let's have smart
people from government,

and they exist, believe me,
in the government space,

and smart people from tech
get together and discuss.

It's the same thing.

It's like, why are they
talking past each other

in this ridiculous,
emotional bull crap,

just essentially?

And so one of the things
I think is important is,

there's more and more
politicians that do understand

the uses of technology.

- Name one, give us a person
who we could look to--

- Jared Polis.

- [Man at Table] Jared Polis,
- [Cara] from Colorado.

- [Man] Colorado.
- [Cara] There's a lot.

There's not, it's not
few, but there's few.

- Darrell Issa from
California thinks he knows

everything about technology.

- He does think he
knows everything.

I think most of them don't.

Most of them don't.

- You're skeptical of that?

- I'm skeptical of all of them,

because I think the
way they talk about it

is kind of ridiculous.

I do think the
Obama administration

certainly had, is much
more of a tech President

than any other administration.

- Is this not, though,
to the question,

and thank you for your question,

is this not a
generational affix?

That is to say, when
the mulch is overturned,

when the people who are
in public office now

move on and we
have younger people

come up, automatically
they'll be more tech-savvy,

right?

- No, I'm 412 years
old and I'm very good

at technology,
thank you very much.

It's ridiculous.

It's not an age thing,

it's a question of
interest in the future,

you know what I mean?

Anyone of any age could--

- You don't think Lindsey
Graham's successor

will be definition
be better able to

answer his question?

- No, because, you know what?

I was just in D.C. and
they were at a party

and they think Blackberry
is the hottest company.

If you go by Washington
D.C, Blackberry should be

the biggest company on
the planet, all right?

They all sit there
and I'm like, what?

- [Man at table] What
are you talking about?

- What are you doing?

And so there's reasons
they're using Blackberry,

but none of them
are good, really.

I mean some of them are,

the security is their big issue,

but still, they love
their Blackberries.

So I think one of the issues is,

Hillary Clinton seems to
know how to use emails,

obviously, but I agree, there's
something gone wrong there

in the way the government
is set up to deal with

that kind of thing.

And so, you're right.

They don't know
how to send emails,

some of them know
how to use Twitter,

some of them know
how to use Facebook

and things like that,

and they understand
the importance.

They're like, let's get a
young person to help them.

But if you're a politician
in this day and age

and you do not
understand digital media,

you really, you
should not be making

legislation about it.

- Well, especially as it
extends to the internet

of things, like you said.

- Well that's what's
more important.

Let me just make that
one single point.

Before it's photo apps,
it's social network,

it's stuff like that,

the stuff coming down the
pike is about food technology,

it's about transportation
technology,

it's about finance technology,
healthcare technology,

and the government
really, you know.

I got in trouble because
I said, I think it was

on Meet the Press,
they were talking about

the Obama website.

And I said, here's the
problem trying to attract

people to Obama care is kids,
everyday, use the internet

and it works perfectly.

It never doesn't work.

Think about it.

Not very often.

I said, if Tinder can make
a million matches a day,

they can get a website
going for insurance,

you know what I mean?

And one of these
Washington pontificators

was like, are you
comparing the Obama website

to Tinder?

And I said, no, Tinder works.

- Exactly.

- Seriously.

- [Man at table] It's not a
very flattering comparison,

right?

- But you know, I was
making a bigger point

and they just, they really,
the more important thing

is the government has
to be smart about using

digital technology
to help its citizens.

We should be able to
vote online, really.

- So let's stay with that.

Let's stay with that.

So the President was in
Austin for South by Southwest

and one of the
things he said was--

- Mistakes were made.

- Well that we need
tech entrepreneurs

to work with government.

But the cultures of
those two entities--

- They do, they
fight all the time.

- You know, government
is slow and bloated

and risk averse.

- Well, that's a plus.

- And tech is fail fast
and sleek and streamlined.

How to you bring tech
and government together

and not have a big bump?

- What is nonsensible about
the fact if you are someone,

if you're a single mother
who needs to get assistance,

do you actually need to
go down to an office,

waste--

- [Man at table]
No, I'm with you.

- Why isn't there
an app for that?

- Is government situated
to be more tech forward?

- Why not?

Why?

That's ridiculous.

They can use a telephone.

- The culture of government,
for years and years--

- Why?

They're stupid?

- Yes.

- Why?

No they're not.

They're not.

We abrogate as citizens, if
we're allowed to say that.

Like, okay, you can be stupid.

- Well, I don't think
we should let them,

but I think it's a
hard fit together.

- Why?

Why can't,

we accept that.

It's not true.

- [Man at table] You think
I'm letting them off the hook?

- You're letting
them off the hook.

They have done better with DMV.

Now you can make an
appointment online.

Crazy.

- Well, the fact
that here in Austin

we pay taxes online, right?

- You pay taxes on this.

All the wasted energy
that we put into stuff,

we have to demand it of
our government to have,

you know, Bloomberg
administration did a lot.

A lot of stuff online, a
lot of information online.

a lot of information online.

- So you think if
we're not voting online

or registering to vote online,
it's not because we can't.

It's because the people in
charge don't want us to.

This is the President's point.

- I think they're
not thinking of it.

I think they're not thinking
of it strongly enough.

And it doesn't , it's
like when we talk about

when media companies
had a separate,

I was talking about
it with someone else,

had a separate Chief
Digital Officer?

Do you remember?

Whenever they have that,
I'm always worried.

I'm like, digital is important
to every aspect of any media.

- [Man at table]
It's not a modifier.

- So there shouldn't
be a separate

digital chief of anything.

- Sir?

- Uh, thank you for
your time, Cara.

I was really pleased
to hear you state that

the FBI and the
government in general

do probably have
the ability to--

- [Cara] Oh, they do, 100%.

- To decrypt these phones.

And it seemed very clear to
me that the real issue is

not can they get
access to this phone

but how inexpensive
that access is.

And personally I feel very
concerned if that access

is inexpensive.

- [Man at table]
So the question is?

- And so my question is,
is that really the issue?

That this boundary can
really be expressed

in terms of cost and
that we want it to be

relatively expensive for
the government to get access

to this information so that--

- I don't know if
expense is the issue.

This goes back to
our very beginnings.

It's what kind of access
do we want the government

to have to our
private information

and how should they get it

and how should
they go through it.

We don't live in a
fascist environment.

We live in a
democracy, allegedly,

and so, therefore, they
have to use legal means

and proper means to get to it.

And it's too bad, 'cause that's
they way we're doing it here

and that's why our
country's been great.

And so the issue is,
you know, listen to me,

this is not an easy business
decision for Tim Cook to make.

Let's just be clear.

It is not helpful for them
to not give the government--

- Is he losing and
business, though,

by standing on principle?

- You know, he's making
a very good point

is that there's repercussions
beyond this one incursion.

- Right, but couldn't
you make the argument

that by standing on principle,

more people are
going yeah, Apple.

- Yes, they have.

But first the stuff was, the
minute we have a terrorism

thing, they scare
the shit out of,

they love to scare
the shit out of us.

And there's dangerous
people in this world

It's Trumping.

It's reductive.

They're immigrants, we
need to build a wall

for the immigrants
to keep America.

Nobody wants the complex reason,

we invaded Afghanistan,
we invaded Iraq,

we did this, we don't have
enough good intelligence.

It's so complicated,
the best thing to say

is that iPhone is the
reason we have Isis.

Oh, well then, let's open it.

That's their thing.

- But isn't what
the government said,

there's no way to win
an argument on this,

and I don't want to wage one,

but isn't what the
government not said,

the reason that we have
Isis is the iPhone,

but the way for us
to get to Isis--

- One of the ways.

- And maybe to
prevent future attacks

is through this iPhone?

- One of the ways.

But you know, Isis
was using text.

They use open things.

And by the way, the
minute you open this

ten other things pop up.

- [Man at table]
Well it is definitely

a slippery slope, right?

- Ten other, but guess what,

there's gonna be 90
other amorphous things

that pop up where
information goes,

believe me, they
have lots of tools.

- As long as I can hack
into my daughter's SnapChat

at some point, I'll be fine.

- No you can't.

It's ephemeral.

It's an ephemeral messaging
system, allegedly.

No, it is.

- Sir?

- Good afternoon.

One of the things we
didn't talk about today

that I've enjoyed
your commentary on

is gender disparity
in American business.

Not enough women in
charge in the boards

and executive levels.

But about two years
ago Kevin O'Leary,

the guy from Shark Tank,
made some great comments,

and I hope you know the
context because you can

probably explain it way
better than I could,

made some great comments, but
its been two years from that

and I'm wondering if I
just missed something

on the top levels of
investors about any progress

about getting more
women in charge?

- Yeah, where are
we on this issue?

Apparently not good.

- It's worse.

If you notice, a lot of
the new tech companies

are putting out their
gender and race reports,

their diversity
reports, essentially.

And it's 70% white guys.

70% white guys.

Every one of them.

- [Man at table] Has
it really changed?

- It's gotten worse.

Actually, there were
more graduates of women

at MIT and other
organizations 20 years ago.

And now there's much fewer.

And there's all kinds of issue.

- Why, why , why has the--

- Well, it's another
complicated issue.

The way we teach math,
the way we treat women,

the way we talk about
excellence in math and science

and the way we tell girls,
there's something that happens

with young girls
where they suddenly,

it's not cool to be smart.

That's a societal issue.

Then there's the
way, like Maria Klawe

from Harvey Mudd College,
she's really fascinating.

We had her on stage.

They're doing a different
kind of education.

It's really interesting.

There's always one guy, one,
it's always a white guy,

one guy, there's always a
guy in computer programming

that messes it up
for everyone else,

who's so arrogant and insulting

that nobody wants to be in it.

So instead of just trying
to solve the system,

she's focused on that guy.

Like why are you doing this?

Let's change your attitude.

Everyone's gotta be part of it.

It can't just be a woman thing

or a man thing.

It's gotta be a both thing.

- By the way, the media
business is no better

than the tech business
as this goes, right?

- No.

Well, a little better.

- Well, you look at
the big newspapers

around this country,
and how many newspapers

can you name run by women?

- A lot of women
have lost their jobs.

Well, there were.

There were.

- You know, here in Texas
we have Austin and Houston,

both run by women editors.

- It changes, yeah.

- But I look around
at the New York Times,

Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, LA Times,

Chicago Tribune,
this is my point.

I mean, my question
is why are we,

we're no better--

- It doesn't mean
we can't criticize--

- [Man at table] No, we
shouldn't criticize them, right.

- I mean, here's why.

Because tech is supposed
to be our most tolerant

and innovative and
interesting group

in this country.

And it is a very
tolerant environment,

and they still don't,
it still doesn't happen.

And one of the things
they tend to do,

and I hate, I know there's
scientific evidence of this

and I get the point
for the science part,

but unconscious bias.

That's the word they use that
gets themselves off the hook.

Oh, I didn't know that
there were 10 white guys

on this board.

What, you didn't
pick your head up

and look and notice
all the white guys?

- Do you think Marissa Mayer
has been treated fairly

or are the problems
she's having--

- Oh, don't ask me.

- No, I'm gonna ask you.

Or are the problems
she's having at Yahoo

problems of her own making?

- Yes.

- [Man at table] Both?

- I think in that
case we have to,

yes.

- Both yes, she's been
treated unfairly and--

- I think she has not
been treated unfairly.

I think she's not running
that company very well.

That's it.

You know, and she's
gotta be judged--

- Full stop.

- Full stop.

It's not a gender issue.

Everyone was behind her.

She had everybody behind her.

That's a nonissue.

But in any case, this
idea of unconscious bias.

It's ridiculous.

It's laziness.

It's pure laziness not
to look up and notice

that everybody is like you.

And by the way,
there's so much data

and business data that
shows a diverse company

is a better company, it is
a more profitable company.

You shouldn't have to
make that argument--

- [Man at table] But
the argument exists.

- They want you to make that.

Let's not make a do the
right thing argument,

I'm like, why not?

Why not make them do the
right thing argument?

Because it is better to
have a diverse environment.

You can't have great
ideas if you have

the same group of people.

And you can't just pattern match

the Mark Zuckerberg's
of the world.

One person was telling me,
and it's a very common thing,

it's like, well Cara, if
we had a Marsha Zuckerberg

instead of a Mark.

First of all, Mark wouldn't
make a great looking lady,

but that's fine, but
that's ridiculous.

There's so many women
at so many levels

that we celebrate these
single founders when,

you know what, Facebook
has a lot to do

with Sheryl Sandberg.

It has a lot to do with tons
of women executives there.

Same thing with Google.

There's all these
amazing women executives,

but we just celebrate
the two at the top

instead of everybody there.

We like to do that
because that's, we're
reductive that way.

But it hasn't changed.

- [Man in hat] Thank you.

- Sir?

- It hasn't changed.

- First, I wanted to say
that I frequently watch

for you and Walt on
the, here it's 10 a.m.,

11 a.m. slot on CNBC, so
please keep doing that.

- Okay, we like that.

- I really appreciate it.

And I also appreciate
your story about

downloading a book and
basically breaking the internet

at that location.

I was at Purdue when they were,

I was on DARPA net,

I was working at Los
Alamos National lab

and I was dating somebody there

and so I was doing the
what would now be texting

with telnet, so it reminded
me of all those days

and it was fun to hear.

- Let's take your question.

- So my question is
predicting between one year

and two years from now,
stories will come out that

oh, wow, this encryption
thing is a lot more difficult

than we though and the
opposite of what people

seem to be saying
is true and that is

it's really easy to
do strong encryption

that can't be broken.

I think it's much easier
than is being implied.

- [Man at table] What's
your sense of that?

- In less than a year from
now or about a year from now

it's gonna be, wow,
everybody has this encryption

that's so good and there's
apps that you can download

that make it impossible to
crack even a super computer.

- Yes, that's what I'm saying.

They keep saying
let's get this one.

I'm like, criminals
are gonna get guns.

They're just gonna get guns.

And so are people
with bad intents.

They're gonna find ways to.

By the way, they use
other technologies

that's not encrypted.

They just do.

They're not all
computer geniuses,

like you're in a Bond movie
of something like that.

I think it goes to the
heart of other issues around

inequality, about
religious issues.

It's so complicated
and we prefer to focus

on one single thing
because it's easy.

And you get crying
families, believe me,

everyone has sympathy
for these families,

but at the same time you
also should have sympathy

for rights of privacy which
is critical to this country.

- [Man in audience] It seems
like it's a kennard to pretend

like that's the reason--

- But you know what, the
government always has done this.

They always overreach.

There's never been a
moment where the government

doesn't overreach
in our history.

They just do it, and
that's why we're here.

And then we push them back

and then they overreach,
it's just so common.

And we act like it's
different, but it's not.

- We have time for
one more question.

I want to be sure we
get this gentleman here

before we go.

Thank you for your
good question.

Yes, sir?

- My question has to do with
the Calvin and Hobbes moment.

In the last six months
or year, have you had

a moment similar to that?

- A VR.

I think some of the VR
stuff is really fascinating.

I'm really riveted by it.

I thought, at first--

- So you have seen so much and
kind of have a critical eye

to everything--

- Two things, two things.

Censors.

Censors everywhere.

There's going to be a day where
we're going to have censors

that are gonna be
like grains of sand

and we're gonna send them out.

- For geo locating purposes?

- Everything, for everything.

Sensors will be on everything.

Like, it will know pollution,
it'll know things that we

shouldn't be getting,
cancer causing agents.

Like, that's the kind of
stuff that's really fantastic.

The second thing is, I've talked
about this a million times,

I love my Amazon Echo.

I think it's the first
iteration of voice-based

command systems that
are really effective.

Now, people at Google and
Apple are real snooty.

They're like, we have
better technology.

I said, well, they have
the product that works

in the environment.

So if you want to try
something that's cool,

try the Amazon Echo.

It's the first time where
I start talking to a device

and it responds in a way
that I can see the future.

- It's your other good
relationship besides

your phone, right?

- Yes, Barbara and
the Amazon Echo.

You can't change the
Amazon Echo's name.

You either have to call
it Alexa, Echo, or Amazon.

And I wrote Jeff Bazos, I'm
like, can I call it Phyllis?

Why can't I call it Phyllis?

But that's another one.

And then the third one is VR.

I think some of the VR
stuff is going to be

astonishing around learning,
obviously porn, clearly,

but entertainment, travel,
it's just really starting

to get really
freakishly fantastic.

Like when you put it on
and you're like, whoa,

this is, it's really fun.

The issue is content creation.

I don't think people know
how to create content.

It's a different kind
of content creation.

That'll be the--

- [Man at table]
That's the next thing.

- But I love VR.

I think it's great.

- Give Cara Swisher a big hand.

Great to have her here.

Thank you all.

Great to have you here.

We'll see you again, take care.