e going to see the levers. And to me this idea is the fundamental lesson of Edward Snowden. We all knew that you could use technology to use law. What he showed us is you can use law to subvert technology and if both don't work together neither work. We're not going to solve this unless we get the tech and the markets and law and regulation and policy working towards a common goal. Awesome. That is a very good final word. It's kept people wrapped until lunch. Actually the better final word is lunch is served. Lunch is served I hope. I think the code for not yet. Let me thank our panelists and then John will tell you about the lunch logistics. But thank you guys. Thank you. And I think the invitation from NetGain and really what was highlighted here is these complex problems do require all those solutions and this is a really good community to be digging into that. Lunch is served so have at it. Thank you. Thank you to the staff for hustling and getting it up. It's right where you're looking at it Mark. You're looking at lunch. Straight back. Hey everyone just giving you a five minute warning. We're going to start back up in five minutes. Chance can you hear me? I'm not going to do if you can hear me once, clock twice. I'm not going to do that. But we're going to start in five minutes everybody. Andrew Boucher can you hear me? Five minutes. We'll start back up in five minutes. Hello everyone. We're going to start back up now. If you wouldn't mind we've got one more set of conversations and we're going to release you back out for more social time in the back of the room. If folks in the back wouldn't mind coming down to the front Mark I see you back there. I'm going to start calling people out. Chance and Lori would you mind bringing bring your friends down. David Moore bring your friends down. Thank you so much. To kick off this panel my colleague Ava Pereira from the Knight Foundation is going to give you a little bit of context. Ava. Hello everyone my name is Ava Pereira and I work with the Knight Foundation so just to give you some context for our interest in IoT we see enormous potential for this transformative technology to shape cities and public life. But it also comes with risks. So we are in the process of making six planning grants for $1.2 million to explore the proper framework and governance models for IoT before sensors are deployed. So we've been working with Susan Crawford from the Harvard Law School to shape these grants and develop them and she's going to moderate a panel for four of our grantees today. So I'll turn it over to her. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Come on in those of you in the back the visible jointer of four foundation presidents was exciting. I have to say the visible jointer of these tremendous four public servants is also very exciting. Most people will live in cities we know that and the tremendous incentives and the collection of information by private companies is easy to discuss. There are also tremendous benefits to the use of from the use of data and technology in cities and these four tremendously gifted local government generalists they're all in technology but they have a seat at the policy table, have a lot to share with us about the potential for action that helps people's lives and the occasional asymmetries under which they operate. There are enormous benefits here. I want to make sure that we underscore that. In each of the cities that represent there are tremendous opportunities for economic growth and for social justice. Simultaneously they face deep issues of homelessness and poverty and crime that they're attempting to address every day. So let me introduce our speakers to you and then I'll kick it off with a few questions to them. I wanted you to meet Yasha Franklin Hodge, who is right on my left, who is the grizzled veteran of the group. He's been the chief innovation officer appointed by Mayor Marty Walsh for about three years now, almost three years. Before that he founded Blue State Digital in 2004 where he essentially built the backbone for the Obama digital presence in 2008 and 2012 and before that was with the Dean campaign. James Hardie two over from Akron is someone with a deep background in both education and public health. He was elected to the school board in 2005 in Akron and has also served in community health operations. He's now chief of staff to their new tech savvy mayor, Mayor Dan Horgan.  Two, James is right, is Shereen Santoshan, who is the chief innovation officer for San Jose which as her mayor, Sam Liccardo says may be the 10th in size in the nation, but the first most interesting, most extraordinary city in the nation. So she has a deep background with working with NGOs in other countries outside the United States, also with McKinsey and has been in office like James and like a person I'm about to introduce to you, Charlie Brennan, for about 15 months. So three years here 15 months for the other three and a lot to share with us. On my far left, Charlie Brennan, who has 21 years of experience with the Philadelphia Police Department where he rose to be essentially CIO of the department deep experience with local government returned after 10 years away at the beginning of his new mayor's term Mayor Jim Kenny, also a tech savvy mayor, to take the reins of the information assets there. So these are people who are not merely running the email systems and the databases, although that may be part of some of their jobs, they're also at the policy table working on strategy for their cities. So Charlie, I wanted to start with you where are things in Philadelphia brotherly love when it comes to the future of the Internet of Things? How's it going? Well, we're running a couple disparate projects and I use the word disparate because that's really the problem that we're trying to solve. For example, we're doing some things with sensors in the street to control traffic a little bit. We're doing something with air quality monitors the police are moving into the body cameras which are becoming a big deal. But believe it or not, that's not the thing that I'm most proud of that we're doing because they tend to be what I would call the sexy things about the Internet of Things. What I think the best thing that we're doing now is we're building the network the very non-sexy stuff that no one wants to do because it's behind the scenes and you never get any credit for it is we're building the network a first class network to be able to carry anything that the IOT applications have to throw at it. So, you know, we probably had the same network for the last 15 years. We're increasing our Internet bandwidth by a factor of 20 times over what it is today. We're increasing the capabilities between about 225 city buildings five times over what it is today. What was kind of interesting about that is that we did that as a result of a provision in the cable franchise agreement. And we know other cities do cable franchise agreements too, but there's a provision in there which lets you build and let you negotiate what's called an institutional network and we took advantage of that to its help. Comcast is a big tenant of ours in the city of Philadelphia and I oversee the cable franchise agreements and we were able to negotiate a robust network that will see us for the next 15 years. We'll see us through. Terrific. And without that network, anything from the Internet of Things is running on sand. You've got to be able to move the data around. Yeah, what we're seeing is that and I'm sure everybody else is saying this too is that we're trying to shove more and more stuff through pipes that are very small, especially video. Video is on x-rays. We're seeing our health department send x-rays over and they're pretty big. I'm not an x-ray expert, but I know they're big files, but the video files are just not moving at all. I get complaints from the police your system is broken because it's not moving these files, but they're essentially trying to push 50 gigabyte files through a straw, it's the size of a straw. We're going to make it like a big tunnel is what we're looking for to be able to move those files around. So that's really the challenge and that's really where we're headed. Now without revealing any confidences, I will tell you that all four of these people said they were holding a lot of meetings with vendors. There's tremendous asymmetry. Actually, without tremendous resources inside City Hall, a lot of companies come to meet with these cities. So James, how are things going with your Internet of Things deployments? So I think Akron is in an interesting place. I always like to say the city of Akron is your quintessential middle America medium-sized city. So IOT has to work there if it's going to be something that catches on in a healthy positive way across the country. So we are really looking at it from a strategic perspective right now. We want to take a step back and figure out a lot of our own answers to the questions that were raised even this morning. In large part because as you just noted, and we were talking a little bit prior too, having a tech savvy mayor and being sort of at the beginning although I would say on water and sewer we're ahead of the game if anybody wants to talk about water and sewer. It's that when you raise your hand and say we're ready we're ready to enter this space, this IOT space, we want to delve into it in a big way. Every vendor under the sun descends on you. And the new shiny object that we talked about this morning becomes very, I'll use your term Charles, sexy to those mid-level managers that we heard from this morning who all have budget authority. So from the mayor's office perspective what we want to do is try and take a step back, I think where Akron's at is we know we want to get into this space but we want to do it in a responsible, healthy way that looks at the investments we make really have to fit into two categories. Our mayor says often if it doesn't provide valuable data to us as city managers to actually improve services for folks, whether that's repair the water main before it actually breaks type of level of data. And if it doesn't provide some sort of demonstrable benefit to our residents, our customers at the end of the day we shouldn't be doing it. And I think that we at the city of Akron are leveraging this opportunity with this convening today and the opportunity with the grant to really take a step back with these cities and others that are in similar space and say we don't just want the next shiny thing. We want the shiny thing that's going to do what we needed to do for our residents and for city, good city government. Your platform approach and your mention of water makes me want to ask so what do you know about water? What's happened there? Talk to us about that. So without any real strategy we jumped into the IOT space through a massive 1.4 billion dollar sewer construction project that we're currently underway in the city. We have combined sewers dating back to our wonderful roots as a rubber center of the world where we're capital of the world. But we also dumped an awful lot of junk into the Kyoga River and so we want to fix that and we have a mandated project to do so. But we don't just want to fix it. We think that we can actually save money and resources and again at the end of the day build less which saves our rate payers money by leveraging our entire system as a storage tank. So we're actually I think ahead of the game in terms of water and sewer infrastructure in Smart City because we've leveraged our partnerships with South Bend and University of Notre Dame and started to look at these real-time system controls that use sensor technology to really help our city managers again have the data and the algorithm predictive modeling to know where it's raining how to leverage the sewer system and actually use it as a storage basin so we don't have to build as much which means we don't have to spend as much which means our rate payers don't have to give us money out of their pocket every month as much. So there's a real benefit there we think in what we're trying to do. Let me ask the other three cities here. Do you have water sensing going on in the same way that Akron does? You do? Yeah, we are too. You're doing all of this. Do you think you could learn from each other about how those water systems work and what they're up to? Yeah, interesting. This is a theme I want to develop here. Tell us about how things are going in San Jose. We hear a lot of talk here about strategy need for platforms. Is that similar to what you're confronting in San Jose? Absolutely and I think you know just taking a step back people often ask me what is a smart city? There's a million definitions out there but I would say it really should be technology for the people and so in San Jose we're really trying to take that kind of values based approach to this and the conversation about sewers and about networks is because what is happening now is that IoT is one piece of digital infrastructure and we should be talking about this as essential infrastructure for cities of the future and we are the largest city in Silicon Valley we're a city about a million people. We're set to grow 40% by the year 2040, an additional 470,000 residents and we don't have, government budgets are not going to grow at that rate and so this technology like IoT can be incredibly beneficial to us so I don't want to lose that part of the conversation when we're worried about surveillance and these other pieces because technology is really valuable but IoT by itself is just one piece of the puzzle you know you have to talk about fiber, you have to talk about small self, talk about IoT you've got to talk about that, how the physical infrastructure like light poles will house the sensors for IoT activities and this is a pretty grand opportunity to create and it's complex and so the way that we're addressing that is we actually decided to launch an effort earlier this year that's a digital inclusion and broadband strategy together and what this grant is going to allow us to do is add IoT to that and so we can really take an integrated approach to this very complex challenge that we face because in the absence of that I think we are getting pummeled by vendors constantly and there is an increase in information and there's at least 12 standards for IoT right now and so anyone who tells you let's go do this whole system, you've got to be pretty careful and there's a lot of hardware and it's expensive to get that up on every pole in your city and so these are massive investments and so our approach has been more thoughtful experimental but also really thinking about these systems because how we build them today is going to affect how this space is for the next 20 years because the risk is you'll end up with a lot of silos that don't speak to each other because meanwhile the private investment community is wildly excited about all this they're saying that the market for smart city investments is 1.6 trillion dollars by 2020 just keep adding zeros so their incentives are to sell separate systems and then have you guys write a check to ask a question from one of those systems and that's not your goal and actually that's all of your checks that you've written right that's what we're talking about is taxpayer dollars you're the grizzled veteran, how is it going in Boston on the smart city front? So things are going well with us but I think Boston would probably, I and my colleagues would say that we're more on the skeptic camp on some of the things that are happening right now in smart cities I think like San Jose we are trying to be very values focused and in particular being focused on solving real problems for real people when we get asked sort of what is your smart city strategy my answer which is a little flip is usually well it's just our city strategy it's about having an equitable city it's about having economic development it's about sustainability because if I'm developing a smart city strategy that isn't directly tied to those real needs and challenges we have as a city then I'm not doing my job I'm off here in this sort of technology ivory tower so we released a smart cities playbook that sort of outlines some of the values and some of the questions that we're really trying to wrestle with as we think about how to approach smart cities technology but in addition to values we're also really trying to think a lot about value in how we put together and how we do test projects I say somewhat jokingly we're in the juicero juicer phase of the smart cities movement right now where you know there's sort of this huge industry incentive to take everything that exists in the city and figure out how to upsell some technology on top of that thing and oftentimes the question is not really answered about how that technology is going to deliver real and meaningful outcomes for constituents I've sat across from very large vendors in this space who have said things like well our job is really just to give you a platform and a bunch of sensors and you figure out where to get the value out of it and then you ask them sort of like okay what's this going to cost and they're like we're thinking a 70 million dollar rollout and I'm going wait a second that is not a good place to start a conversation with a cash-strapped city so what we're trying to do is identify pilot project opportunities that allow us to really demonstrate value that are rooted in real and specific initiatives that we have we know we can get kiosks on the street in Boston but if we're going to do a kiosk project we want to tie it to specific digital equity goals that we have we're doing a pilot project right now working with Verizon that's tied to our Vision Zero initiative where we've instrumented a specific intersection in the city that's very crash prone and we're capturing all sorts of data about interactions on the roadways but with the specific goal of testing interventions to help us understand whether this kind of sensor apparatus that can tell us things like cars blocking bike lanes and pedestrians crossing against the light and cars cutting off pedestrians on turns we're trying to answer the question as to whether this technology can actually help us make the street a safer place this technology project in tandem with a larger initiative that is focused on a specific goal of the city to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries on the roadways of Boston and so that's really our philosophy on this we have a project that we'll be kicking off shortly that Knight is supporting which is focused on beta blocks and that's really this idea of how do we make city infrastructure available for people to test new things in a way that is community inclusive because I think that's one of our other values that's often sorely missing from smart cities conversations is how to bring the community into the discussion about what to build, why you build it how you build it, how you address privacy issues so we're trying to create an actual living laboratory for those conversations and those interactions to take place so that it can guide our strategy going forward. It's exciting and Charles I want to return to you because you have a lot of experience in city government listening to Yasha talking about pilots and ways that Boston moving forward how do you figure out what to start with with the internet of things? Well we also are approached by pilots I would say weekly sometimes it seems like daily I'm actually very wary of pilots and we are very selective about what we do. I know this will come as a shock to the audience but there are some vendors who believe that a pilot gives you entree into the whole business of the city and you don't have to go through an RFP process and that's what we kind of watch for so we do experiment with pilots but we're very very careful when we do that as far as like where we're going to go after years of deep thought on this issue I've come to the inescapable conclusion that not everyone thinks like me I know you're all astounded by this because after hearing me talk you probably wonder how could that be so one of our plans is the reason I drop back and what we're going to do is we decided to go out and get a lot of opinions about really what's a smart city but Philly is an old city and a city is not a city a city is really a bunch of neighborhoods and I will tell you categorically that the definition of smart city would be very different in each of those neighborhoods for the poor neighborhoods in which they are worried about walking out of their homes and getting shot video surveillance is a thing that they all would love to have but then again we have kind of the richer people if you would go to them and say what's a smart city they would say I want to know where to park can you tell me where a parking spot is I want to see it on my phone and I want to go there so I don't think that we're actually going to build a plan that's going to say we're going to take this idea and spread it across the whole city because it's not going to satisfy the whole city I think we're going to satisfy different parts of the city depending upon what their individual needs are so I think that that's how the plan is going to come out but right now we have an RFP on the street and the RFP is basically saying to a consultant can you help us figure this out about what we need we've already reached out to again a lot of people don't think like me the business community the educational community the civic groups we've reached out to all of them and we said we want you to be part of this process and the culmination of that is really a smart city summit conference we're going to have an October in the city so that's kind of the culmination of the plan and the end and try to get input from everybody and I'm sure that right now if I told you what it was I would probably be totally wrong there's this idea of Internet of Things as an application almost on infrastructure but what's the basic infrastructure that you think your cities need in order to carry out your strategy let me ask James what do you need to have in place so as the non-tech person on the panel for me it all starts with universal access to the internet I mean we don't have it in Akron I would venture to say most cities don't have universal access from an infrastructure perspective every time we crack a road or lay a sewer pipe we're putting conduit in might not have fiber in it yet but we own it I think it's critical I do hope we delve into the infrastructure piece because I agree I think digital infrastructure is as important as water infrastructure but it's not seen that way because quite honestly water and sewer infrastructure isn't seen as essential anymore at least not from a state and federal perspective municipalities are bearing the full weight of this entire thing I mean it doesn't matter whether it's IOT infrastructure or your basic legacy infrastructure pieces it's all on us now and so we have to think about digital infrastructure from the same perspective where do you start I think you start with making sure all your citizens can access reliable broadband you know internet access and then from there I think we have a responsibility to protect the access almost as a public utility we were having a conversation about small cell technology fantastic technology in Ohio where municipalities are now battling a large tech giant who has worked a bill into the state legislature to take away the right of way and use it for corporate purposes to put the technology up and it's under the guise of well this is a public good we're expanding the network but our cities able to reap the benefit of that not necessarily even from a monetary perspective but from a protective role that we have for our citizens so being the non-tech person I guess I would think about it more philosophically to say it should be treated digital infrastructure should be treated like any other municipal utility that we operate but unfortunately we at the city level are on the hook for it all now the states and the feds have for the most part backed away from funding and from helping us do those certain things so there's significant challenges in taking that philosophy to its full extent I'd like to dig into that there are more than states where bills have passed or are pending that would remove from cities the ability to control their own public rights of way really remove your ability either to charge for it but also to design it and control who gets whether it's a neutral point or whether one actor can control that street light or whatever it is it's a political battle going on that's invisible from Americans now Sherene you have a lot of experience in the mobile world so if you were you know queen of the entire situation what powers should cities have and how can we work together to ensure that that city power remains in place well I think first the public right away is infrastructure that was built with taxpayer dollars and in order to use that infrastructure companies should pay rates reasonable rates on that infrastructure to be able to use it and for cities one of the things that we've seen which has been touched on is that so far with the systems that we have if we let private sector investment go forth it tends to invest in areas that are the most profitable as perhaps they should because they are corporations and as cities we incentivize full doubt of infrastructure in areas of the city that we need it and laying additional conduit and fiber and that you know should be preserved and is an essential tool for you as residents of these cities to get the infrastructure that you need and so this sort of large scale battle that is happening is going to be I think a long conversation I will say that and if we want to get the point of digital inclusion the way to do that is not to take away the rights of local municipalities and frankly local residents in determining what is best for their communities and is there now an organized city voice on this issue Yasha not yet we'd like to organize one and we need some help in doing that I think you have all these cities who are wrestling with issues of access to infrastructure in a different environment some cities own their street lights but not their utility poles some cities own none of it some cities own all of it you have different state level regulations in some places like Massachusetts cities are fairly empowered in other places cities basically have no authority to regulate these things that having been said I think there is you know as was so well expressed by my co-panelists there are some really compelling reasons why cities need to have a voice and need to be a part of the discussion of how we build the connectivity infrastructure for today and for future applications especially because we are frankly at this point the last frontier in many places of defensive values like equity and universal access and privacy and open internet rules now that the FCC has sort of abandoned their charge in that area so I think what we would like to do you know certainly I and some of the other folks on the stage have talked about this I've talked about this with and other CIO's is find a way to get cities together so that we can start to build a counter narrative to the very well coordinated well funded narrative that's being pushed by telecommunications companies that is essentially saying cities are just a problem they never all they want to do is say no or charge just unreasonable amounts of money and they're using this to ram through very productive policy changes I think cities have an opportunity and also a responsibility to build an honest counter narrative I will say like it is not always easy to do a small cell in a city and it's not just because we care about things like equity it's also because sometimes cities can be real pain to deal with like we're not efficient we take you know we will say well if you want to put a small cell you're going to have to get every neighbor on that street to say yes I want that small cell there honestly I don't think that's a realistic requirement there's a level of community engagement that we need to support but there's also a place at which you can start to become a hindrance to actual infrastructure investment that's important for the city so I think for us as cities with shared priorities to be able to develop a shared agenda that says look we're going to commit to building processes that are predictable and fair but we're also going to stand up for the values that are most important to us around promoting competition equitable access and so many of the other things that are important in telecommunications I think we can do that but we as cities need to organize Charlie when you entered in on this new job who did you call in other cities how did you learn about how other CIOs were approaching questions like this how does this work well there's a CIO group in the state that you know I've hooked into but it really wasn't very helpful and the problem with Philly as a million and a half people is that there's very little to compare us with we can't compare us with New York or Chicago and when you start looking at cities that are like us they tend to be the newer cities maybe the newer cities out west and I don't think they experienced kind of the same problems that we do so I run into that I run into that problem of you know who's like me that I can talk to and I can't quite find anybody I actually looked up the I didn't know you had that many people and also the metro there's some accurate may have just 200,000 people in its area but as a metro it's 700,000 so in fact all three of you are in fact all four of you are in a sense of a size 5 million for the whole metro area 645 or whatever it is for Boston itself you're all kind of midsize in your way and maybe could share information and organize this way because I do think well I'm the moderator so I'll slow down and not express so much of an opinion but there is a real opportunity I think like if the four of you plus let's say 12 of your colleagues known to you were able to spend a day together would that be useful to you? I think you're hitting on something important about the changing role of technologists in the government there's very established institutions for people who manage IT systems right and there's plenty of places that those folks can get together but I think everybody on the stage is in a role that has a technology component but it also has a strategic component and it has a component that ties to policy and it has a component that ties to the sort of you know how do we do business as government in the 21st century delivering digital services using data in IOT that's a really new area that the legacy institutions are not creating the right kind of support networks around and I think we have to start to build some of that infrastructure both in terms of getting people together in rooms to talk about these issues but also some of the supporting research and writing and publishing that will help support people who are doing this job in cities big and small. Yeah. Oh yes, Street. Oh I was just going to say and it is sort of organically happening already and through you know partnerships like this NetGain are so essential to bringing us together and helping us share and be able to frankly fight some of the fights together against some pretty moneyed interests and I think also there's a few organizations you know there's the MetroLab network there's Bloomberg, WhatWork Cities that has pulled together a lot of cities that have been very helpful and I think those coalitions are going to be really really important going forward. And James are silos an issue inside Akron City government by any chance? Does that ever happen? Do people not talk to each other internally? I was going to say that's a serious question absolutely. I mean I think that I mean I would echo that we have to we have a responsibility as cities to break down our own silos we need to make it easy for well-intentioned entities who want to do business in the city for the purposes of really furthering the city's goals and as partners we want to make it easier but at the same time we have this responsibility sometimes those things are in place for a reason. I don't know if anybody has heard a small cell thing outside your window. I can tell you I get calls weekly from residents with this refrigerator running outside of their house. We as cities have to respond to those to our constituents and I think it would be easier to respond to them and say yes I understand it's it might be a nuisance to you but this is what it does for the city and this is the revenue that we gain to help improve the public spaces and things that you enjoy. It wasn't just put up there because they are allowed to do it. We had a negotiation and we were able to make it happen in a way that at least you as a resident gain something out of it. But I do think as a city we have lots of silos going on. One of the things that we're hoping to do through the grant from a technology perspective is break some of those down. We don't want to have, I think to Charles's point earlier, we don't want to have one size fits all smart city technology disbursements in Akron. We want to really hear from our residents. We have the same issues. We have neighborhoods that really are asking every day for more cameras and we have residents every day who are asking for completely different things. So we can't have each department trying to fill those needs on their own. We have to have some sort of clearing house from a city perspective that isn't too onerous but at the same time protects the public interest. So earlier today Alberto Bergwitz said he used to not be enthusiastic about funding or even working with government at all and now he thinks it would be helpful to fund people who would go inside and spend a while. Like not just flit, not just do a project but spend a while.  Absolutely. I mean I am already doing that because I do we have to find what I call creative capacity because we don't have money. So I use the Fuse Fellows which is they do national search for high talent and so we have a Fuse Fellow who's helping with our broadband strategy. I'm recruiting an HBS, Harvard Business School Leadership Fellow this year who will join in August my team and having those folks with their special skills not only helps with the technology piece but sometimes the project management piece, the strategy piece, all of those things are really essential because you need folks who can move across sectors. I mean half of our job is translating the technology into things people understand and then translating it into policy and educating folks and the more bright minds we have working together in City Hall the better off we'll be. If I could just add to that I think there's huge value in having folks with technology skills go into government partly because they can teach but also because for them to deliver things that matter they have to do a lot of learning first and it's very hard to do that learning from outside. You know we'll have people come with a product and they say oh this is perfect for traffic management and you start talking to them and you realize they've never spent time with a traffic engineer who does this work every day and they've come up with something that seems great on paper but is completely impractical. So I think finding ways to embed people with technology skills inside of government organizations where they can go and sit with a traffic engineer a fire dispatcher, a building inspector and really learn not only the ins and outs of the job but also the culture sort of tribal nature that exists within these different parts of government and then help develop and bridge that gap with technologists who can build things that have that real on the ground impact for those people. There is a fundamental and there's plenty of reasons for it from silos to talent to all sorts of other things but until we start creating those kinds of relationships in city government I think a lot of it's going to be technologists and long time civil servants talking past each other. Charlie any comments on this? Yeah I think whatever you bring someone in from outside especially who's been outside a long time you should have a defibrillator waiting for them when they come in. Because when they come in they keep saying like how can this be, how can you even function and you know after their heart stops and you shock them back you know you kind of get them back into why government does what it does because I think government is sometimes almost inherently inefficient so when you see business and I've been on both sides and you know you come back into government you really have to have a mindset and as long as somebody comes in from the outside and you prepare them for the cold water shock that they're going to have they can be useful. And if they're willing to stay for a while? Yeah I think they have to hang for a while because it really I think people come in from the outside at least in my government. I always tell them because they kind of get nervous right away and they say oh my god I don't understand any of this stuff and I tell them it takes about a year. It really takes a year to kind of figure out what's going on and after about a year then it dawns on you okay I know this doesn't work well but I gotta work within the system to try to make it work. And in fact those can turn out to be some of the most helpful voices because they spent a little time outside and are adding that inside. James have you had any experience with that kind of inner outer role? People popping in absolutely and we so my mayor is the first newly elected mayor in Akron in 30 years and so you had a long serving mayoral leadership that thought one way and now you're obviously as most politicians do you want to do the opposite in many ways and so we have a lot of interested people who want to help the city the thing that I think about too to sort of not say but rather add to what's already been said it'd be great if we could also build capacity within our communities to do some of this work within places like Akron. Data storage data management is obviously a big piece of all of this some cities like Kansas City have been successful in developing with their own tech community startups that can handle their own data. So instead of paying necessarily to have some big conglomerate come in and store your data for you or I'm dealing with us now with the body worn camera issue why can't we also build capacity within our own software guilds and tech communities and things within our cities so that if that technologist doesn't ultimately stay past four or five years we have built capacity within our communities to be able to keep the conversations moving so that we don't have this vacuum when this person leaves. We had a lot of discussion this morning about privacy and security and the need for at least one questioner suggested a need for public engagement on those issues. This is hard. How would you learn how to do that? How would you approach talking to the public about a difficult set of IoT privacy and security issues? Anybody? I mean I'll start by saying I think we're trying to at least take a do no harm approach with the projects that we do the traffic safety thing I mentioned earlier if you go to that intersection which is very well outfitted with cameras and sensors you'll see on all of these street poles at eye level a little sign that says the city of Boston is using technology to improve traffic safety at this intersection and there's a URL that gives a very plain English description of what we're doing why we're doing it what we're not doing and then allows access to more detailed information about data privacy and storage stuff. I think there's a baseline level of just being cognizant that it matters that you talk to the public about this and that you try to be open to that conversation. I think what the work we still have to do and I know there's a few folks in this room who are starting to do this is to build that toolkit to have these conversations so that it isn't just us informing residents what's happening but that we're actually engaging with them and understanding the landscape of their concerns about what they're excited about and so that we can start to integrate that kind of two-way community conversation into our planning for what projects we do and don't pursue. Right now I think we tend to take a very ideological approach to issues of privacy and security to a lesser extent which isn't necessarily a bad thing that we have people in the tech community that feel very passionate about this but the example that's been raised a couple times that surveillance means very different things in different places. People's attitude towards sharing data who they're sharing it with, how it gets used, matters a great deal in terms of what they're comfortable with and I think those are the kinds of nuanced conversations that we haven't yet learned how to have as a city. So I think we're just starting to have those conversations in San Jose and I would say this is an area where the laws are well behind what technology is and so the way that we're starting to think about it is how do we bring in academics and sort of neutral third parties to help us develop those policies, help us think about privacy by design, what does that actually mean practically when you're working with your residents and the people who populate Silicon Valley companies all live in San Jose so we've got a very interesting demographic and I'm already starting to think about because some of the startups coming to us are bringing us robots and we did a civic contest to combat graffiti and we got about 140 entries and the top four two were robots two were drones and so we're driving towards this new solution that will save the city $60,000 every time that you have to take down graffiti off the bridge but you know there's no framework right now for dealing with these new technologies and so having that conversation early and having it open because what I've seen so far what I've observed is if you don't have the conversation then people assume it's something very various so you have to be open. And James Chief of Staff it could be a sharp line menacing city or freaks me out versus keeps me safe. How do you communicate that? What do you do? By the way I loved that analogy I wrote it down the smart city versus menacing city I think it's accurate and you know the one example that comes to mind so in Akron I think we would also echo we do the first do no harm sort of strategy right now but the one example that I came to mind right away is we're in the process of purchasing hardware and software and rolling out a body worn camera program this is going to happen all across the country but Akron through a DOJ grant we're I think among the first wave of municipalities that are going to deploy these to every patrol officer and then work through the data and the file storage this is evidence but to back up the point that was just said there isn't exactly a huge standard just yet on these things so we at the municipal level are availing ourselves the best and the brightest to help us think through our own local policies what other cities are doing but there also isn't a lot of case law yet so it's not like these things have been tried you know whether we're right or wrong on these policies and these are simple but important questions things like can an officer review the video before they put right the statement or after what are those implications so in my role as chief of staff I have to look at the tech but I also have to look at the policy and the politics of it because it's a great thing I think you know you look at the public surveys enormous majority support the deployment of public or body worn cameras but we really haven't from a community perspective thought through the policy political and technological implications of just that one system and then how it fits into the overall sort of smart city strategy that might be going on so from Akron's perspective I can see where in my job I have to balance the tech the policy that goes with it which in many cases isn't written and the politics of it so it's additional capacity additional resources information sharing I have to say as I go to many scrappy cities across the country interview people many of the problems resonate deeply they're very similar but your heroes all of you have no time to go around talking to other people showing up on panels except when you have you know you've got to get your jobs done and some resources to expand your capacity seem to be a really good idea Charlie do you have any last thoughts on that? I was really kind of taken aback by how many speakers this morning talking about the privacy issue really I mean you know complete privacy but I think the one thing that we all share in common in this room is the reason you want complete privacy is because you're relatively completely safe and your works work completely safe at your homes but I would venture to guess that everyone in this room would give up some of their privacy if you didn't feel as safe as you do just think after 9-11 how quick we were to give up some of our privacy after that and as we get further away from 9-11 all of a sudden our attitudes change I agree with you and I agree with what a lot of the speakers said it's time to do some of the same work now for you know this privacy issue but I do believe that the aggregation of data could serve a public good especially if it is anonymous for example I even remember Google for a while I don't know if they're still doing it or not like they could predict kind of where the flu was going to go I remember I could see it coming to Philly and I figured I better keep washing my hands and you know I'm in my way you know so kind of knowing those things is a good thing but I do know that there's a tremendous concern about and there will be more of it about collecting data on you as an individual or identifying you as an individual but I think it's almost a balancing act I will tell you that in my neighbor in my city there are people that would give up all their privacy if they could feel safe I'm going to open up the audience in a second I want to do a little run of the table here for your top priorities for where additional money should be put so Yash I'll start with you where should go? I think you have so many great experiments being conducted all over the country cities big and small we need help elevating the stories of those experiments what worked what didn't and helping us learn from one another and Shreene what do you think what would you fund? I would say the capacity and bringing people in and out and then also additional models and codes around privacy and things so we're not all reinventing the wheel every time we try to figure this out I would concur with that I would add again cities like Akron we need help with just hard dollars to build some of the infrastructure out it's just not there outside of some siloed grants and we just don't have the resources at the end of the day to do everything that we would like to do I kind of agree with James is that we'll have money to build a master plan but I know we're going to run out of gas is that we would normally look to the state and feds for grants I mean that's where we would go I don't see that happening here and there's a great concern that I can have a fantastic master plan but basically nothing to do with it questions over there a few rows back Hi first of all thank you this has been a really good panel I think when we look at the internet of things and especially when it's paired with artificial intelligence the benefits tend to start with the privileged and end with the underprivileged and the risks do the opposite they start with the underprivileged and they don't start with the underprivileged so what is a single piece of advice you would give to each other to turn that such that when you're building these systems for your city that the benefits start with the underprivileged and the risks I don't want to say the risks start with the privilege but they don't start with the underprivileged Well I would say you know first of all I'm not sure that we engage underprivileged communities in these conversations enough and so even on the digital inclusion piece which we've been working on you know we went out and we started looking at what other cities had done and we didn't see a lot of people who went out and said into their neighborhoods and asked people you know why aren't you connected is it you know we know largely it's cost and then the second reason is that it's not not relevant to me but why is it not relevant and you know the point is you have to go out to other people and ask and so we're actually doing a street level survey in four languages and going out in current neighborhoods and engaging them in that conversation and engaging the schools through our public library and you know I think this is the problem that you have sometimes when you have technologists designing your IOT strategy because you're not bringing in that civic piece of it. I would say I mean it has to start with what your actual priorities are as a city right if you don't care about underprivileged people then they will get the short end of the stick on all of this stuff and many other things that have nothing to do with technology so really getting your policy priorities straight. I think there's a real danger with some of this stuff of what I call sort of smart washing a problem that actually needs real investment and instead we say well let's just throw some technology you know fairy dust at it and that's going to make it go away. It's like if people are getting sick with asthma in your neighborhood because the air quality is terrible air quality measurement isn't going to solve that problem right you've got to actually go build a park and plant some trees and think about how to improve things so I mean I think ultimately it's making sure that the more closely aligned if you have a progressive strategy if you are thoughtful about equity and equitable access and then you align your technology very closely with that strategy I think you can avoid some of those pitfalls. We need to stick to our guns and stick together so I mean we as cities have to fight for other cities and also share just like this wonderful idea that I want to steal immediately and go and do an acronym. The other thing is that to your point city issues are city issues and we have to engage our residents one on one in groups in neighborhoods about what's going on in their neighborhoods first if there's a technological solution that could aid it fantastic but we can't approach smart cities by saying you know we have the technology that's going to fix that we are going to fix it there might be a technology that helps. You know when you talk about the underprivileged and access group what are you really talking about you're talking about wifi right that means nothing to the rich people because they all got it and it means nothing to the businesses they all got it too so I don't believe you could ignore any constituency because the businesses and the rich people have all the cloud and if you ignore them they're the ones who have to pay for the underprivileged to get what they need so I really think that you really have to attack this at a much broader scale and not leave anybody out of the loop. I'm wondering what you're doing and how you're thinking about getting access to private sector IOT sensors and data that might be useful for some of the things that you want to do. Is that a thought for any of you Charlie? We've hoped into about 2,500 private sector cameras for video surveillance. I know video surveillance everybody cringes up when I say that but we own about 400 of our own cameras but we realize that why should we use ours when we have so many others out there so we haven't looked beyond that yet but the public-private partnership is something that appeals to me as long as we can both agree as to what the benefits for both are. We've done some stuff with data sharing around transportation so Waze had a pretty innovative transportation program a data sharing program that they've since cut back quite a bit but allowed us to get access to road speed data and run some interesting experiments we've changed policy and intersection or series of intersections. What does that do to traffic congestion in the city? I think the fundamental problem we always run into is that often what our interest is and when we try to represent the public is in conflict with the proprietary value that a third party sees from the data that they're capturing. We have a data sharing agreement with Uber and it's been helpful in understanding where and how Uber operates in the city but it has not been helpful for a transportation planning and housing planning perspective because they are concerned about giving us data at the level of granularity that would actually be useful because it's competitively sensitive to them. So it's a very tricky area and I honestly don't know of a lot of wildly successful examples of people finding that well-aligned middle ground. Yes. Thanks for the panel. I think it was pretty illustrative to understand the city perspective here. I want to pick up on something James mentioned that you mentioned that the city has done a good job of leveraging the entrepreneur ecosystem for the technology, for the smart city efforts. Now isn't the onus on the city, as an entrepreneur, I'm quite intimidated with the, for lack of a better word, the bureaucratic jungle I'm going to have to face to be a technology provider. Shouldn't cities be more transparent and provide enablers for smaller companies to engage? I mean, I can't speak to the complete Kansas City experience but they seem to have developed some of their own. And so to answer your question, yes. I think all of us have said in various ways that while we may push back sometimes on sort of the vendor onslaught of wonderful ideas, we also don't want to be close-minded and bureaucratic either. We have to find a balance. And that's where again, I think this whole conversation around technologists and a city the size of Akron, having people that can translate what you need to what a civil servant needs to provide so you can move forward is critical. I've tried and I would argue have had medium level success in doing that in my year and a half but it's proven to me that it's necessary. We have to protect the public interest but also build up entrepreneurship within our cities we don't want to hold that back. Hi, I'm Anne from the City of Boston again. I was recently in Ohio and the sort of new set of limitations on local control of the public right of way certainly seemed top of mind for many people there. How does Akron think about this and how do you see it tied, if at all, to action you might take on other things that impact your constituents as they use the internet? So definitely top of mind. I would say though and I don't know the experience of my colleagues up here but home rule in general when I say home rule I'm talking about cities ability to control their own destiny has been under siege for many a decade now at the state federal level. So it's always a concern for us when something that might seem insignificant like oh just take a piece of the public right of way it's going to be technology that everybody wants so don't worry about it. That does not go over very well anymore nor should it. I think unfortunately cities for too long didn't fight those battles and now we're dealing with it on the backside to say you know what we have a duty to our citizens that if you're going to use the public right of way you need to compensate them in some regard because again it's their infrastructure. They built it. So I think we think about it in terms of we had one word for this whole thing to be balanced. How do we protect the public interest but at the same time be progressive in moving forward. We don't want to we want to be optimists. We don't want to be pessimists in this new environment but at the same time I think we can't sell our residents down the river simply because a vendor comes in and says you don't even have to purchase anything. We're just going to put them up for you and as long as you give us the right of way you know your residents are going to benefit. I don't know that they will. How are we measuring that? Who are they benefiting because we're giving it away too much I would argue too much and it's going to be this continual balance that we're all going to have to strike between great ideas shiny new objects but also are they really benefiting real people at the end of the day. And by the way at the end of that especially in the IRT space is that they own all the data so when we think about new economies that are going to come more data is going to be a massive currency if you give that away now you can't roll that back and so we want to work with private sector we want to use our city as a platform we do a lot of experimentation we do demonstration projects with many of our Silicon Valley companies but we do that in a way that we can have equal funding. Just a quick thought to that one of the things we're running into as we think about data ownership and control is the intersection between the desire for ownership and privacy and the public records laws so we've actually found ourselves in a few places deliberately ceding control and access to data because we are concerned about it becoming a public record and therefore exposing people to undue privacy risk so this is I think for you know there's at least a couple of lawyers in the room I think an area of hopefully some exploration and some evolution of our legal structures so that we can maintain the goals of transparency that come in the private public records laws while also creating real protections for digital data privacy. So just turn to the table one last time if there's one thing you want people to remember from this panel what is it Charlie what do you want people to remember? That big cities have unique problems we may be a little different than some of the other jurisdictions you see and we'd like to establish relationships that help us resolve the problems because I know internally we will never get the funding to do the smart thing smart city things we need to do. James? Everything that was just said I would only add the balance piece that cities and municipalities are in that very delicate space right now where states have pretty much abandoned us from a certain from a policy perspective or standards perspective and a funding perspective so we're trying to do as much as we can for residents with very little resources but at the same time balancing great ideas and fostering that ecosystem that's going to make our cities thrive we want our cities to thrive I'm optimistic about that even after this morning's all good information but at the same point we are not we have to be cognizant of the risks and challenges involved in that we just know that cities know that we're trying to work through it but we also are in an environment where there's very little out there and it's really each other that we have to get through it. That's terrific, Charlie what's the take away? I would just say that you know I think one of the speakers earlier said that governments are abdicating their responsibility and that is not true at all we are on the front lines and we are fighting these battles and frankly we need your help in this process because there's a lot of sort of cards on the technology front and we have each other but we don't have kind of investment in capacity we don't have investment in knowledge and we need some help in some frameworks and I think you know I'm so thankful for these kinds of forums that allow us to get some of that help. Terrific, Yasha last word. Smart technology and smart ideas is easy. We have real problems that affect real people. Focus your energy and your investments on the space in between those two things so that we can actually make this technology deliver real value. Please join me in making these four heroes for their work. We're in the last sprint to the end. I want to particularly thank Susan Crawford. This panel wouldn't this panel wouldn't have happened were it not for the not just the conversations and meetings she put together for us late last year but I think the work that has been leading for the last several years in thinking critically about the internet and its potential and how it can best be rolled out at the city level. I thought Cherine's closing point that I think there's been a lot of kind of inside or outsider tension through some of the discussions we've been having today and through some of the discussions we've been having for the last year and Cherine's attempt at the very end to say we're in this together local government is an ally I think is particularly relevant today when so many of us are aware that public distrust of institutions across the board with the perhaps the only exception being institutions like the one we're in today being so high and local governments now finding themselves in the unique place of being government but also being trying to serve citizen needs and residents needs in a whole different way. Yeah I think certainly you see some opportunities for those bridges and opening doors that you need to kind of see one of the other closing comments was you know there's one word to describe this balance I guess my word which is a little bit more worrisome still take coming out of this we started being decided for optimist or pessimist and I kind of gone back and forth all day is that there are some very real tensions in that and there are tensions that we're having to make decisions on in real time and so like I think it was Cherine saying it in the last piece once you make those decisions for the vendors to hold your data it's hard to roll that back and so there are kind of tensions that we're deciding between civic value and efficiency and privacy between control over our own data and convenience and many many decisions that we're making in real time where there are tensions and I think keeping that in mind we are at the beginning of a conversation and a wave where being honest about the things that are going to be hard and not just saying you know by the right dialogue we can easily solve them is another part of this process because I think we you know this is a I was just talking to Mark a little bit at the end and I wish we had gotten into that panel that you know his comment really was it's a lot more complicated than that in some ways I mean it was a longer conversation than that so I'm kind of coming a little bit hopeful from comments like this but also really feeling like there's a lot more complicated stuff for us to dig in but we've started a lot of the right conversations I will stand by what I said on the president's panel though that a key to me in it is understanding and to a degree sort of blowing this up in people's minds to the point that we can have those conversations with a much bigger group of people this is a you know a tiny room the neck conversation is a tiny conversation that the set of people working on cities is a tiny conversation that set of people working on internet activism thinking about private security is a tiny conversation we really need to grow into a much bigger conversation across society because the internet becomes the environment that we live in yeah I think that's a common thread running through so with that in mind in terms of growing and broadening the conversation we wanted to make sure you guys are part of as we close this chapter of the conversation before turning back to drinks in the back so we really do especially those of you who haven't had a mic yet we really would love to hear you share maybe there's something that you're thinking about that you weren't thinking about when you came in maybe there's something you're thinking about doing here that you weren't thinking of before you came in and I know about half of you by name so I can't start like poking on folks like like Elena yeah our go to volunteer right here Peter yeah yeah for sure scary and banal Bruce Lincoln of Silicon Harlem one of the comments that was made in the last panel equated the need of the underprivileged with that of being served by wifi and that's not the case whatsoever because the underprivileged communities are historically underserved from the infrastructure standpoint actually it needs to be reversed it's those very communities where we have to put in place the next generation internet wifi is one part of that but also the gigabit infrastructure is another part of that and then tied into that is all the kinds of services that they need from a humanistic standpoint not simply surveillance or this idea that when you walk out of your home you want to have the information over your smart phone as to whether or not you're going to get shot because that's not really the case in these underserved communities but it has to be a level of equity and humanism applied to how these services get deployed and that really resonated a lot with what Josh had to say in terms of how Boston is thinking about all of this and is there anybody at the back got the microphones can actually are wireless and can go beyond the back of the cameras our former philanthropy colleague Elena is raising her hand so and I should say I should get Elena we had early conversations with Elena and she really helped formulate a lot of the pathways we ended up going on so no pressure but we're coming to close us out as well as help to start. No it's just more of a comment that I was happy Elena Harkness and with the Brookings Institution now and do a lot of research on cities and governance issues but I heard a number of times on all the different panels people call out the importance of intermediaries that can structure this conversation just as this conference this net gain initiative is and it just strikes me how important that's going to be over the long term I've talked to folks here today that represent universities, organizing groups, human rights groups you know people that are on the very highly technical side of things and I just think we have to think about that infrastructure I think Darren said this earlier for the long term this is going to be a long term problem so I just want to kudos to the organizers for pulling together people representing each of the sectors that I think need to be at the table but let's think about if we have the right intermediaries in place to sustain this kind of conversation and really work together to get there. Thanks guys. And we don't yet so it's a good thing to call out for sure. We have a couple more comments and then we'll maybe wrap and continue the more important strategic intermediary building which is drinking. Nobody from the back group we didn't get anyone from the fish anything from the laptop crowd in the back. I think there was one hand up there. Go Georgia I'm Georgia from the Open Technology Institute. One of the things that has struck me the last week I was driving over the holiday weekend and listening to Reply All from Gimlet and they added a new feature on whether or not you should be angry about the things that you're reading about online and they focused on the broadband privacy decision for their first one and they ended up deciding to make it a 4 out of 10 as in not something you should worry about and of what struck me was the two hosts for the podcast are relatively privileged technology writers telling everyone they don't need to worry about that and I was like okay we're clearly not with the conversations we're having here we're still not fostering enough larger conversation about what the impact of that really is what the impact of these problems are for the more impoverished communities for low resource communities and how do we start to change that and so thinking about it from within the tech media conversation like we all know each other and talk to each other I think we're still not really getting out to the communities that are really hurt by these things and we're definitely not reaching the tech community yet so just food for that well um yeah I just wanted to say that it was great to hear from the people who are in the organizations and foundations that are part of net games and to the technologists and from the cities it's important though that this isn't an internet of things conference this is about the public interest and funding public interest technology and with the internet of things who's going to be looking out for human rights, digital rights, marginalized communities if not net gains and the people in this room it's not going to come from the commercial sector so those who people who work for municipalities and towns and villages it's important when you make technology decisions to think about again that after effect next year five years ten years from now because you can't put the toothpaste back in the bottle so I want to stress that thank you wait Matt you used toothpaste from a bottle but I know I think you're right and this is the seed I totally applaud that spirit and appreciate that comment this is the seed of who's got to take care of that stuff. Hi I just wanted to say as a last wrap up for folks who might not be familiar there are some amazing programs and initiatives that are here in the room doing incredible work that I think could give us a point of inspiration to lead from so I'm going to put some colleagues on the spot but if you don't know about it yet please take a moment to look into ranking digital rights something that will speak to and support some of the earlier conversations with regard to what we need to know and how we support it. Greta you can say more but more importantly I want folks to know particularly who are interested in community engagement strategies that are led by fostered by supported by and are sustained by communities most affected is in New York the Rise program which is an affected digital stewards program where young people are trained along with community members to engage in localizing mesh nets right so it's not just the internet it's about internets and how communities can then own them and shepherd them so for their since they weren't in the room with us today but they're very much affected by this from community to education to workforce please take a moment to find out more. Can I pass it to you and put you on the spot? Thank you Megan. Hi I'm with New America's Resilient Communities program and as Megan was saying we work with residents in six sandy impacted New York City communities to co-design and build mesh wireless networks that are really like local internet projects so really helping people understand how their engagement works locally and Megan also mentioned Rebecca McKinnon's fantastic ranking digital rights project which really has created an entire methodology around corporate accountability and human rights and technology so I would absolutely recommend folks take a look at that. Alright great well thank you all so much I'm going to mention that you know net game doesn't stop here the projects you'll hear about are Joe Andrew did I see a hand up in the back I was shocked how quiet and reticent you were I thought maybe you had a cold or something. So if those you don't know personal democracy forum is coming up June 8th and 9th and anybody who's registered here would be happy to extend a deep deep discount because as John's about to say the conversation that is happening here is continuing in other places and we bring together about a thousand people from around the country and parts of the world and a lot of the same topics are going to be brought up there and we're going to expand the community as much as possible to June 8th and 9th and if you need any information you can find me or reach out to John or anybody from the Knight Foundation. Thank you. And what I was going to say is in addition to that the next iteration of net game that we're going to start taking on start on Monday taking on is around what we're calling the quantified society the ways I mean overlaps a lot obviously with what we've been talking about today the ways in which data intentionally often unintentionally with our awareness often without our awareness is driving the way our lives are being impacted and if you want to get a little sneak preview our colleague Chance Williams from the Open Society Foundation is in the back way back corner there he along with MacArthur Foundation and his colleagues Susan Morgan who's here too are taking the lead on that so we're excited to see where that goes for our part I really want to thank Lauren and Susan from the Knight Foundation team who got here a little bit before 6am to set up and moved with us today as we move things around I especially want to thank Alana Berkowitz who I think is still here just saw her Alana was part of this journey for us and really helped get the ball rolling in a lot of these conversations and thank you so much to the library staff and all the folks who have run this for us and then I also want to thank on the Mozilla side who's one of our senior fellows has been driving this whole kind of work around net gain as well as Michelle Thorn and John Rogers who've been part of our IOT kind of I don't know I want to say research group but really kind of crazy activists fuck up the world group if you haven't met John introduce yourself over the course of the cocktails but really an amazing team the Knight and the Mozilla people working together thank you to all of you and thank you to all the staff here at the library for pulling this together and thank you all for just adding so much value to the conversation I for one am more excited to see what comes out of this today than I was walking in this morning so but meanwhile please stay and keep talking I will no longer provoke you to stop the conversations we can have them for a while there's wine and I think beer in the back room so please hang out and they're not going to kick us out so eventually


Hey everyone, welcome back in this lesson and I want to show you how to trade a long call vertical in Tastyworks. So we're looking at a chart of SPY And let's say your assumption was you thought this was going to kind of turn around and continue higher So you were looking for a bullish trade in in anticipation of higher prices You could look at buying a call vertical doing a long call vertical spread So it's very easy on the Tastyworks platform simply click on the trade tab and when you're on the table mode What you'll see is the option chains populate We like to check we like to trade between that 30 and 60 days to expiration You could see the monthly options are bolded with with a with a more bold white The others are a little bit more grayed out and have a debut or a queue for weekly or quarterly options So we stick with the monthlies and between 30 and 60 days So if we open up that option chain, you'll see all the different strikes available And so what we're looking at is buying a call vertical spread So remember the calls are always on the left and we want to start with the options that are slightly in the money So you can see this little ITM with the arrow pointed up That means all the strikes above that line are in the money all the strikes below are out of the money So when we set these up, we like to start a little bit in the money and then buy the options a little bit out of the money So to do that you can simply just piece it together by clicking on either the bid or the ask Okay, so the first thing we're going to do is choose the strike that's slightly in the money Let's just choose the 274 And for this example and we want to buy that one So we're going to click on the ask and that's going to populate this highlighted green buy box So you know it's if it's a buy that it's colored green And then we're going to sell the option that's slightly out of the money So let's just do five points wide which would bring us to the 279 And then we can simply sell that one and you know it's a sell because you've got the s1 And it's highlighted in red. Okay, so we're buying the in the money We're selling the out of the money And then if you look down below you see all of your statistics So you can see this is probability of profit of holding it all the way to expiration It's about a 50 50 bet 49 percent If you manage it at 50 percent. So the probability of making 50 percent is up to 63 You see the delta is positive because we we know this is a bullish position We want the stock to go up. So that's going to be a positive delta number You can see the theta the max profit and the max loss for the trade If that's good for you and that's everything that you need to know about the trade You can simply hit review and send and shoot that in I want to show you a couple different things. I want to show you the the visual representation of this and I want to show you one other way to set it up on your trade platform So if we clear this off the other way you can do it is you can go up to your strategy drop down here And remember we we're looking to buy a long call vertical. So you can just click on this toggles it to long Click on this toggles it from put to call And then you can look at your drop down and and make sure it's clicked on vertical And when you click on that it automatically puts the strikes down on your on your trade tab And it automatically defaults to slightly out of the money the the next out of the money strike So those aren't the ones we want for this example Let's just click and drag this up to the one we want which in this case was the 270 floor We can click this one down and it's just you can drag these around. It's very easy Let's drag it back to the 279 where we wanted they can see all the statistics lineup for exactly how we had it before So again, you can just review and send that or what I like to do first just for double confirmation Is go over to the curve tab make sure you're clicked on the analysis tab as well And that'll bring up the visual representation Green represents when you're making money red represents when you're losing money on the trade You can hover over the break even you can see up here on the flag that it gives you the PNL at expiration And then the PNL Theo is where the PNL is on that profit line right now So you can see if as I scroll how that changes from negative to positive and from positive to negative And so this gives you that visual representation The other thing you can do is if you decide, okay, I don't necessarily want these strikes I want to move these around a little bit You can just click and drag the tiles you can widen that out You can make them a little bit more narrow You can do whatever you want And then you can check the stats down below as they change from your probability of profit Probability of making 50 your max profit max loss And you can see the same information up here on the on the flag as you scroll along to give yourself an idea of Where the break even point is where you start to lose money where you start to make money Etc The other thing you can do is you can pop out this little window here and look at some different theoretical values So you can you can just you can move this through time to see exactly what happens As you move through time You can adjust the volatility so you can move the implied volatility up and down To see how that affects your profit on the trade So you can do pretty much anything you want. It's a great tool Gives you this visual representation Which i'm a big fan of and then once you're ready to go simply click review and send Send it into the broker to get filled So I hope that was helpful in showing you how to trade a long call vertical on the tasty works platform See you in the next lesson