Alright, we have new people in here so I'll repeat the apologies from before. I am clearly not John Albin Wilkins, though we both have lived in Taiwan at some point in our lives, including currently. I will not repeat the joke I told before. John Wilkins is currently sick and unable to give his talk. This is a fill-in talk, which is mostly conversational and largely participatory about front-end, about as-essential crises in front-end, about what the hell we're doing in front-end. This is a much bolder abstract than I gave five minutes ago. John's talk will be rescheduled for tomorrow, provided he feels better. He currently has food poisoning, which you probably did not want to know. He probably didn't want you to know either, and it would make a really bad talk if you were puking up here. So if you're welcome, you're welcome to stay. We'll have a conversation about front-end things. Mostly you guys talking, more so than me, because nobody wants to hear that. And if you want to leave and go to a different session, this ten tracks wide, I will not be offended in the slightest bit. But there's a mic over there, and because people keep walking in and walking out, we might as well just start, because I have to apologize all the time anyway. Thank you. All right. This is a fill-in session for John Alvin Wilkins' talk, which will be tomorrow. I can't tell you exactly when, because that's still being figured out, but we will have a makeup session for John's style guide's talk tomorrow. So don't leave disappointed unless you're leaving tomorrow. So again, formal apologies that I'm not John Wilkins. I'll do my best to speak and gesticulate like him. I'm not him. Like I said before, we're both from Taiwan. He currently lives in Taiwan. I was born in Taiwan. If we ever decide to live in one place, we'd have to decapitate each other, because there only can be one. And we're here to talk about stuff, because I was asked to do this literally 45 minutes ago. I don't have a wealth of things to prepare it. Oh, God, more people to apologize to. Damn it. All right. Everybody come in, and I'll apologize to you all, and we can start. I'll just leave this slide up. Yeah. No, I'm not. Yeah, so everybody who just walked in and are continuing to walk in. I'm not John Robin Wilkins. This is a fill-in session for John, because John is food poisoning. He will be giving his talk tomorrow. Not quite sure when, probably in the afternoon. Check the schedule online. We will update it. We are having a conversation about front end as soon as people stop walking in, and I can stop apologizing. Otherwise, feel free to leave.  So if I wore John Robin Wilkins, I would be blonde. I'd have blue hair and be really, really pale. But his kids, but we'll keep talking about John, because he's not here. His kids are TV actors. They do Taiwanese variety shows, and they speak amazing Chinese, amazing Taiwanese, amazing English with perfect American accent. I'm super jealous of them, actually. Well, that's what it's going to turn into. It's going to be like 30 minutes on YouTube of me apologizing to everybody walking in before we can actually start talking. You know, I'm just going to start talking. If people hate what we're saying, they can just forget it. Okay, last chance to apologize. I'm not John Wilkins. This is not John Wilkins' talk. John Wilkins' talk has been rescheduled for tomorrow since he has food poisoning. We are going to talk about front end. Oh, I know. I'm already shocking. We're going to talk about some front end things. There's a microphone there. I encourage people to come up to the microphone and speak about this, because I am not the end-all authority of front end, as everybody knows. And so let's talk about some stuff. We're both from Taiwan. Talk about stuff. Okay, I'm just going to start asking questions now. Who are we? All right, who in your... We'll do some show of hand stuff. Who here labels themselves a designer?  Who calls yourself a developer? And this is what you would call yourself, not necessarily what your card says. Who, when people ask you what you do, outside of DrupalCon, call themselves themeers? Does the word themeer have meaning outside of the DrupalCon text to you? Okay. Okay, well, WordPress. Okay, so outside of the CMS space, if somebody... If you got into a cab, let's say, you know, an Uber, let's say, this morning, and somebody asks you what you do for a living. Would you say themeer? No. Okay. What would you say instead of themeer? Okay. Why is that? Okay. That's a rhetorical question. We'll leave it at that. Okay. What do we do? Okay. So what do we actually do? So who here actually touches image compositional tools like Photoshop, you know, Sketch or whatever? Okay. Who uses that as their primary tool? All right. Whose primary tool is more, let's say, text editor, code editor? Okay. Who uses both, say, about evenly? Fewer than I thought. Okay. There's a long conversation to be had, and I'm going to stop apologizing now. So we're already talking. I'm not John Wilkins. This is not going to be John Wilkins' talk. That's going to be given tomorrow, but we're still talking about front-end. So we're happy if you can stay. There's this notion of what should we be doing? And John Wilkins' session is actually based on this idea, you know, that what we're doing isn't very efficient and it's a rough approximation of getting this design idea out of our brains and onto the web and sort of figuring out all these intermediate steps that quite frankly suck and don't fit well together right now. We're making rough stone tools to chip other stones to look more like the thing we want, and we're just knocking, it's all stone knocking. It's not actually making the thing we want. It's all these rough approximations. You have a question? Go ahead, please. Not a question. I develop user interaction with technology. Any way that the user is going to interact with a screen, whether it be a touch screen or just visual or whatever, I develop that interaction. Okay. Cool. All right. So by the way, if you guys want to step up and retort or ask me questions, I just have like 10 minutes of just this, the beginning, and then just sort of as to feed the conversation. And I'm going to stop apologizing now for all the new people in here. So there's this idea of what's difficult and what's easy. What's currently hard about our jobs? What's easy about our jobs? What's the hardest thing? Okay, I'm just going to point at random people. What's the hardest thing right now about your job, no matter what your title may be? Okay. You got it. Good call. Nick, another thing that's hard. User content. Oh, okay. Kevin. Okay, designing things with no visual interface. Okay. Wow. Anything else? Hard. Add providers. Okay. Somebody in the back. Figuring out what a client needs and getting it on the page. Okay. Politics. Politics. Yes. What's that? Support from the top. Support from the top. Okay. So conversely, what's easy about our jobs right now? Good tools. Okay. Collaboration. SaaS. What's that? Collaboration. Collaboration. Slack. Okay. Slack is easy to use. Yeah. Build tools. Build tools. Okay. So, thinking about that for a second. What do we want to do, aside from what's hard and what's easy? What is it that we actually want to do? Please, our clients. Please, our clients. Great answer. Fixed struples markup. Okay. Wait, so let's think about it. Fixed struples markup so that, so that, one last apology. Just Morton walked in. I'm not John. This isn't John Session. We're having a conversation about front end. John Session will be re-given tomorrow, Wednesday afternoon. But we're still having a conversation about front end anyway. You're welcome to stay or leave, except for Morton who, you know, whatever. You're, you're, you're allowed to stay. That's fine. You're expected to stay. Yeah. So between what we are currently doing, what we should be doing and what we want to do. This isn't very well aligned currently in the front end space nor, you know, you could really say ever been in the front end space. There's a lot of, you know, what we are currently doing, which is the best approximation of maybe what we, quote, unquote, should be doing, which may not be what we want to do at all. And this is a fundamental tension in the front end space that I personally have struggled with for almost eight years. And it feels like, you know, Morton, John, if John were giving his session, this would be a great theme, that theme, huh, about his talk, is that it's never quite good enough, is it? Tools, it's never quite good enough. It's never quite the design that wants to be on the web. It's never quite the realization of that platonic ideal that you as a designer, you as a front end developer, you as a UI developer want to have. And resolving that tension has been very, very hard. How many people went to Morton's talk yesterday about theming in front? Okay. How many people went to Steve Perch's talk about the history of rendering HTML? How many people have worked with Drupal more than four years? Does it feel like it's getting better or worse? Better. Better. Okay. Why is it getting better? How is it better? Some people in the front said, you're better. Twig, okay. Embracing other disciplines, that's a great answer. What else? Is it, I mean, is part of it you personally getting better as a developer too? Okay. That's totally a thing as well. Going back to the question of if things are getting better or worse for you personally, how many of you here feel the pressure to become more back-ended as you get longer and longer in Drupal? How many people have resisted the urge to get more back-ended? So those of you who didn't resist the urge, at what point do you no longer feel like you're, do you still feel like front-end developers as you get further and further back into the stack? Because you have to. You do it because you have to, for no other reason. Can I ask you to stand and face the audience? Would that be okay? Thank you.  Yeah. One at a time got here. Here, go ahead. Yeah. Could you stand and, thank you.  Jeremy, go ahead. Green shirt in the back. That's you. Can you stand up? Over here, there was a... It's 11 o'clock. Here. Stand up.  Go ahead. So let me back this up a little bit more here. Okay. So who started here in front of development by accident? So you just sort of slid into it. You started as a site builder and then had to, went to front of development, sort of forced into it because nobody else did it. Okay. Who sort of slid into front of development through the gates of design, having to implement your own designs. How many of you here actually have a CS degree? So there's an interesting thing going out here in this space. I don't know what the breakdown would be if we asked this question in, say, a back-end, a colonial back-end session. I think the numbers are probably different. I think the history of people coming into front-end is much different than that of people who stick and stay with back-end. Who here feels that front-end is too back-end-y now? Like who regrets having to learn engineering principles and or PHP and wish that they didn't learn it? Regrets or resents? Oh, both. Yeah. Who here regrets or resents having to learn this PHP and or I have this idea and feel free to debate with me on this and there's a microphone there if you want to be amplified so you don't have to stand up and bear yourself or whatever. But even, who here is actually, okay, let's back it up even more. Who here has worked with a front-end presentational tool, a modern front-end presentational tool, be it a PHP one or a JavaScript one, an Angular and Ember out there? Does that, do these feel harder or easier than Drupal? Why are they easier? Go ahead, step to the mic, homie. It's yours. Just don't try it. Okay, so one thing I found really interesting is like this whole concept of headless Drupal, decoupling the back-end from the front-end. Because for instance, like usually when I think of a front-end, I'm thinking of like design. I'm thinking of presenting code. Like I get, for instance, like a layout or something like that from Photoshop from designers. And I'm thinking of how to create a user experience for that. And to do that, I need data. Now with Drupal, it's like I get this data but okay, it's so some of these blocks are in like sidebars and this and that and like all these other areas. Like there's all this overlay from how Drupal presents information. It's like I don't really feel like there's a clean way to just say give me all the data that belongs to this node that's going to be put out on this page. I don't really care where it goes because I'm going to determine where it goes. So when we start getting ahead with Drupal, then I'm just like, hey okay, I'll put out a bunch of Ajax requests for all the different areas where I know where things are, the data is going to be pulled into where I'm going to put it. Whereas I feel like right now like when someone has gone in the panels or they've gone into like the blocks and stuff and they've set up all this stuff. Like I kind of have to know all this information of the theme layer to say okay, where is stuff actually going to go? And oops, you know, I don't want the sidebar. Oh, well that blocks on the sidebar. Okay, well let me, you know. Maybe that's a little bit of, you know, an experience on my end but I feel like in general it's easier with a lot of these, you know, like Angular and the mean stack and stuff like that because I just get to say where's my data? What data do I want and how am I going to present it? And I don't really have to worry about where it belongs or who put it where, you know, stuff like that. But your clients don't have expectations of being able to put things where they want that. Like I said, I usually get something like say like a Photoshop layout or something like that and they're just like this goes here, that goes there, that goes here, you know, stuff like that. And sometimes it's not necessarily how it was quite built on the back end and so you're sort of starting to move things around. Yeah, there's templates but like I said, I feel, templates really aren't the problem as much as I just want data and I really don't care where it came from, I just want to know what the data is and I'm going to put it where I want to put it. Five second background. Sorry. How did you come into web development and where did you come from before Drupal? Basically for web development, I mean I was, you know, just, I mean I started in college, I guess. Sure, sure, yeah, yeah. So yeah, most of it's the JavaScript, HTML, CSS stuff and then I've started working with Drupal because my company basically said hey, we're going to do CMS now and so we're working with Drupal. Thank you. So to answer that question of why those frameworks are easier, it's, they do I think a much more effective job of communicating what this tool does not do and Drupal maybe has some, sometimes an identity crisis because it's so modular that if you wanted to add functionality that it doesn't currently do, well guess what? We can now attempt to at least make that functionality so it's the great sort of burden but also promise of Drupal which is leveraging the community to find out alright I want to do something, well probably somebody wanted to do something front end maybe before these frameworks came about and now not only is somebody going to step up and build modules for it but often we have half a dozen modules for it. And then that becomes a whole different thing. So I don't know if it's good or bad, I have mixed feelings about it. I'm more of a right tool for the job and if Drupal is it then that's great but it does muddy up that discussion of well what is the right tool for the job if there's so many tools out there. So that's, so let's say using Angular as an example I'm not going to use that to try to do heavy things in terms of trying to grab stuff for the database or I don't know what support it has for like caching or things of that nature right? It doesn't promise that so I won't use it for that and I'll never expect it from it. I probably get more demands for responsive than I do the flexibility of layout so the moment you do that. Of course those tools, yeah. Right, right, right. But the design, right. Let's give Wes a shot here. Yeah, so my background, I started out as a designer and I worked on Enterprise CMSs, the big air quotes there. So I've come from things like Tritium, Sitecore, Ektron, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible tools. And I think that working in Drupal, there's a lot of things that are a giant headache and you have a lot of freedom and that can totally bite you in the ass but I actually, I love it because it is trying to accomplish probably too much sometimes but I'd rather be able to mess up and just break something than have a system that is totally like this is my content store and I'm just going to give you this and you can do a couple things and then it's like oh god the client wants this flexibility. I'm not going to do that. Yeah, so I actually find that Drupal is way better at things that try to do similar tasks when I'm working with some enormous website that gets way too many visits a day. So yeah, little perspective. Tritium costs a $400,000 for the license and it's like this is a giant turd. Like when I buy it and I turn it on I have nothing. I have nothing. I have no quality of life as a developer. I have no quality of life as far as like there's a web page I can look at. That all has to be done. It's like okay now I begin the two-year process of building a website. Hooray! Like it is the worst. Like I'd rather have something set up that's like oh I got too many days. Like oh my god I need to build everything from scratch and not only that the community like these companies that charge $400,000 for CMS like how many developers do you think they have honestly that know what they're doing? Like it's close to none. It's really really bad. So you know I'd rather have something open source from enabling other people to make cool stuff and all that kind of warm fuzzies and you know there are people that really know what they're doing that have been able to accomplish a lot and I can see how they do it and everyone's pretty open. So it's pretty cool. Thanks. I'm a back-end developer. What are you doing here? But I like shiny things. So that's why I'm here. Just rolling back to the question of like are the JavaScript frameworks more difficult. I did actually find them sort of difficult and that also comes from a project where I was delving into Rails and there's the key factor there of convention and I think that's what makes things easy because I found Rails extremely easy. It makes sense. It's well documented. Once you get around the idea of convention because the first look at it everything is like magic. Like how does this get there but by following convention and I think maybe that's some of the problems that we face in Drupal. Because Rails is opinionated and Drupal is it? Yeah and with such a huge community maybe it's hard to be so opinionated. It seems like we are becoming a little bit more opinionated and also more open because we're accepting the conventions from outside and that looks definitely much more promising for Drupal 8. Thank you. Yeah JavaScript on the other hand there's so many different ways you can do it so if you're looking at well what do I do now? It's like well are you doing copy script require JS? That's a problem I face there. Thanks. I just want to address the flexibility issue with Drupal as being a downside because to me that's the reason why I got into Drupal and why I love it so much I never saw it as a downside. The fact that it's flexible you don't have to use the flexibility but you have the ability to and when I'm starting on a project even on the front end I never start with the design or what it's going to look like I start with what is the experience that I'm creating and that influences what the design is going to be but it's also going to influence the back end which is why I ended up getting dragged into the back end and becoming more of a developer because there were features and things that I wanted on the front end and well damn it I'll just do it myself right? Do you feel like as a developer you seem dragged into being a developer are you forced to be something that I didn't think I was I guess at the time I mean initially but I mean it was some cool stuff it's not that I don't enjoy it to some degree at this point that was a leading question I do have an opinion on this sort of this back-endiness of front end but it's not necessarily a negative one no and I don't think it is because it's you know this is me I like solving problems and I like solving visual problems you know experiential problems but you know sometimes that leads to problems on the back end that are just as interesting I'm a front end developer who works with Drupal a lot but you know over the years have had that frustrations with the markup and I think that one of one of the things that's really interesting about what's going on now is there's this headless thing I really like the idea of headless I'm not for or against it what you guys are talking about is an interesting argument I can think of solutions where if the client wanted that flexibility to move things around I think that could be done in the front end but more what I wanted to say was more of a philosophical thought of how Drupal has given us markup that's kind of a pain but we go to the other end of the spectrum of wanting to do away with the markup entirely and just do it all ourselves which is kind of interesting but I think also Drupal's good it gives us a lot of solutions to problems that we may not think of like internal site search is the first thing that comes to mind or being able to sort things, archive them forgetting passwords, logins and that's something that if we were to do on the front end though certainly possible requires a lot more work for us up front so I think those are things that as fronters we can kind of take for granted in a platform Sure and things are always going to change so if we have to rely on something that's in core three years later when the new best thing comes out then it's just going to be a thorn on our side There was a thing from DrupalCon last year where he had a slide that had the length of time Drupal7 has been in It's somewhere on my hard drive here I think also there's different I think also there's different tools for different projects too I use backbone for a lot of stuff because it's really simple but then something like Angular or Ember which is much more large scale one page app may be more appropriate so it's just kind of using the tool belt Go ahead I mainly came from HTML, CSS some JavaScript so I jumped directly into Drupal and my problem mostly has been documentation if I have to say add classes to like the navigation li elements then I have to go dump into the preprocessor and there may be documentation I couldn't find it and what I could find didn't give me an example that I could understand to do what I needed to do So I guess that's part of the problem but yeah Hey guys we've got more people on the mic Actually this is perfect timing because I would love to contribute to that so one of the things that I think can really help with documentation that my company has been doing is we get college students excited and interested because it's something that they don't even have a language for yet in the education system and here you have this huge group of kids who are super eager to get in they want to get their feet wet they want to get some kind of notoriety and name recognition and so one of the things we've been talking to college students about is like okay get into open source if you see something that's lacking and documentation is a great way to start go through each step by step if you see something wrong go back in and fix it open a bug report that they can use now that really help them get through and like they can have a mentor and kind of get started so I think like promoting that as you go through if you meet college students promoting that open source involvement it's the easiest way for them to put something on the resume I mean if you don't have an internship if you don't have a job yet just start contributing code to open source for sure Thank you I think kind of I'm going to step away from the documentation back to the working things like Angular so I think the biggest thing we see is like we're talking about that delineation between the front end and back end developers where I consider myself more of a full stack developer I do UX wireframes things like that but I'm also in the database and I think that's starting to become pretty common part of it is the Drupal 7 model where kind of things get kind of wishy washy spaghetti code intertwined everything's kind of together and what I think the benefit of that is people having to do both is what you're seeing with these JavaScript frameworks is something that we've been seeing on the back end with things like Rails or database abstraction so you're dealing with like these abstractions on the back end that we've had for years the front end developers are now kind of catching up to this so these frameworks are all just abstractions so you do not have to write necessarily every single HTML element or something or you're using a template engine or Angular jQuery to do your animations because these things to do it all manually and responsive on 25 different screens is really hard it's a really hard thing to do so now we're seeing these abstractions kind of flow forward and so now you have things like Angular and jQuery where you can do these things write it you know what would have taken you two weeks to do maybe by hand can now be done in 15 minutes or an hour so you're really seeing this whole kind of you know the two are feeding into each other the back end developers are learning things from the front end developers and the front end developers are kind of teaching or the back end developers are teaching the front end developers all about these abstractions so you get these whole new sets of tools because of that you know mishy mushy kind of thing where we have to do both because then someone sees oh they're doing it this way you know over here it would be really cool if we had something like that for the front end I think I think that delineation is sometimes you know a little bit arbitrary and it kind of it can be good at times because you need people to specifically work on things but in other times having that wishy-washy situation may actually be a huge benefit you know a hidden benefit that we wouldn't see thank you just as a point I want something I wanted to say before and maybe chimes into the hey where does the front end and the back end I feel like for a lot of people and this is not to call anybody out here who may feel this way is back end is where the hard stuff is I don't do the hard stuff so if it's hard it's back end development if it's easy or it fits into my talent suite it's front end development because I'm a front end developer and this is what's natural to me and I think I do have a zinger for this to tie it all up so we're not leaving on like a bitchy moment but I'll let a couple of these guys here but the idea that the back and the front end have this clear delineation in Drupal and say I only live in the themes folder and these other guys live in the modules or you know whatever folder is a false one and it's not because Drupal is terribly over-engineered or mis-engineered because one would have to write just as much complex JavaScript for their front end app if they were writing an MPC app versus you know Drupal you don't have the luxury of just doing HTML even if you're working with Angular and so this idea that the front end and the back end and then there's a clear delineation of responsibilities and concerns is I think a false one going forward but go ahead so kind of going back to the I think this was the initial question we might have deviated a few times since then but what makes or potentially makes these external systems easier than Drupal or if they are I think for me is consistency and this is something we're definitely solving development is is it a template, is it a theme function if I want to change this markup the one that comes to mind is I think it's like a theme menu or theme menu treat basically you get a hard-coded UL with a string and no context for anything else and so you start having to get into some really hacky things where we're just kind of all over the place in terms of convention and a lot of these other systems offer whether it's an opinionated one or not offer one solution and that's something that it seems like doesn't seem we are really trying to fix in Drupal 8 but right now in Drupal 7 that's what's making a lot of these other systems a lot more appealing okay thank you kind of want to follow up on what you were saying so when I got involved with Drupal development it was a lot of here's a Photoshop file here's a model for how we're organizing the content and some poor soul is in between trying to migrate that process so obviously what Drupal is putting out comes first and then we get that into whatever presentation layer but it seems now for instance we went to a system where like hey we like this convention let's use this convention we're going to put together some starter themes that we're going to use with our clients and that started dictating backwards how we were organizing content within Drupal in the back end and then that's great until someone decides hey let's move to block element modifier and suit CSS and we're going to go in that model and all of a sudden we have to go back and that's kind of an issue we're having because conventions are great but they change constantly and I want the new stuff and so wait you can't bitch about conventions changing and yet want the new stuff at the same time right? I mean it's our own damn fault let me clarify best practices change and and now I mean that was great before this point where now it's kind of like we have to go back and re-approach the content because those conventions lock you in so what's the price you pay if you don't go to the new stuff I think if you don't go BEM what's the loss if you don't go BEM for example well I think but they're not building your projects I mean what's the loss you face by not going BEM here do you mean moving to some new radically different convention sure I think more than anything what we're finding is that we're trying to look at conventions as a way to best roll out new sites I don't want to say rapid development but kind of foundational development and then something comes along that kind of throws a wrench in it or you might be able to reorganize around even around a new convention whereas now because things have been moving back into the content so much it's like you can't okay I mean so yeah it's new toys you don't get to play with the new toys somebody else is playing with new toys and you're playing with your wooden ones yeah dude on the end here stand up yeah you all let them yeah go ahead yeah do you want to say something let's let some of these two guys alright right first and then left so left can you stand up in the front too yeah go ahead stand up so we literally have we have five more minutes and there are two very patient people behind Stolar which I would like to have them you have 30 seconds Jerry I was just going to bring up a completely different topic and we've been talking about a lot of front end back end and all of that and as someone doing front end development the back end was never my pain that's a great way to put it as someone doing front end development so it's something you do it's not something you are but go ahead so the back end has never been my pain point it's the back back end it's the infrastructure stuff if there's something I hate more than anything else it's being a system administrator and so tools all these new tools and everything that are coming out to support front end development which I think is fabulous and great that people are paying attention to it and that this stuff is happening but now with the task runners and the build tools and the package managers and the the continual integration and automated testing and stuff like that which all requires configuration and all of that and having to deal with that makes my head want to explode half the time sounds like you need a back end developer so I have to give this so I have to give this room up but there's anything I want you guys to think about I have a rhetorical question which is my total zinger but people are leaving which sucks but my zinger was if you think things have changed I want to hear people's opinions and I'm at this on twitter if you want to hit me E-A-T-I-N-G-S has Drupal changed have you changed has the game changed I'll leave it at that I just wanted to say one thing really quick this format was actually really cool so if you love the format this is normally called it wasn't one for front end I just want to say that I think something like this should be done every year I agree thank you there's a whole track of these


Let's go ahead and get started. Welcome to, this is pediatric ophthalmology style at Grand Rounds. We're gonna do case presentations. And first up is Dr. Dries, who's lately become quite the expert on superior oblique dysfunction, surgery and everything associated with it. He's gonna share some of the wisdom that he's gathered. Thank you, Bob, and good morning, everyone. This morning, I'm trying to present something that will interest you with quite a bit of information and fairly quickly. So, what if I told you that the superior oblique muscle was not just one muscle, but rather two? And indeed, it kind of is. There are muscle compartments in multiple extraocular muscles. And this morning, I'd like to talk about the compartments of the superior oblique and what that means clinically for diagnosis and surgical management. Thank you to Dr. Joseph Deemert, UCLA, and Steve Archer, the University of Michigan for helping me with figures and multiple discussions over the more recent years. Here, you're looking at the histology of the superior oblique muscle belly with multiple cuts starting posteriorly and then the cuts march anteriorly. And the two colors correspond to two branches of the trochlear nerve. This green color innervates here, the purple-ish color here. And here's a reconstruction of selective, separate innervation of the two compartments of the superior oblique. Separate innervation makes sure that it has a totally separate oblique. Yes. So, what does that mean clinically for diagnosis and surgical management? Well, we do need to talk just a bit about motor physiology of the superior oblique. As we all know about the axes of rotation, the superior oblique is an in-torter, an abductor, and a depressor.  This is the vertical axis about which the eye rotates horizontally that gets you oriented as to the position of the superior oblique tendon with regard to that axis. And you'll have to think about the other axes, sagittal and horizontal as well. This is in primary gaze. And it makes sense that this muscle has those three functions. What about in down gaze? Well, it does change a bit. It's a better in-torter, an abductor in down gaze. And that's in large part because, simply put, the muscle just pulls harder. But the superior oblique does have this unique anatomy we all know with an origin at the apex of the orbit coursing anteriorly and curving around the trachelea and then tendon fibers fanning out in the globe. And in down gaze, here, actually here, this is the eye in down gaze. You can't see the cornea very well. And it's kind of hard to understand why the muscles have better in-torter and abductor. So, let's view the eye in down gaze 30 degrees forward. If you saw the movie, The Matrix, they were fighting and they would freeze and then the camera would pan over to a different perspective. That's what this view is like here. So, the eye is in down gaze. Look what happens to the relationship between the belly, the superior oblique, and the tendon. This is more or less perpendicular. Here, it's more acute. And if you look at the vertical axis, you can see the position of the tendon has changed with regard to that axis, making it a better abductor in down gaze. And the tendon is more at the equatorial position, giving it better in-torsion in down gaze. The contribution from this unique anatomy is only about five to 15% increased in-torsion and abduction. Mostly, it's that the muscles just pulling harder. So, what does this mean clinically? Well, what's it like to have torsional diplopia? This is what it's like to have torsional diplopia. This is a 55-year-old photographer who supplied this photoshopped photo of what it's like to walk down stairs at an apartment complex. And I would just like to show you in this diagram the compartments of the muscle. There's a lateral compartment of the superior bleak and a medial compartment. The lateral compartment, its tendons insert on the posterior fibers of the tendon and the medial compartments inserts on the more equatorial anterior fibers. So, the lateral compartment has more depression and the medial compartment has more in-torsion. The case here is a lady mainly with a hemorrhage with tons of torsion, okay? So, you think maybe this is a selective medial compartment peresis. One could speculate. She has lots of torsion, eight degrees in primary gaze, much more in down gaze, 15 degrees. Really makes sense that those anterior fibers are affected, right? And the medial compartment. And look at her vertical deviation. It's really not that big. It's really quite small and there's not much incompetence in down gaze. So, the posterior fibers of the tendon probably are less affected. Probably the lateral compartment is less affected. So, what surgery would help her because she's suffering? Prism isn't gonna work. Well, let's go back to the 20th century and talk about the Herata Ido procedure. Initially devised by Japanese Dr. Herata, Dr. Ido just to anteriorize the front tendons of the superior bleak but later fells modified it by splitting the tendon and transposing these fibers temporally and anteriorly on the globe, giving them a better mechanical advantage to in torsion. How did it work? Well, quite well. Her extorsion is two in primary gaze, six in down gaze. She still has her hypertropia. Initially she fused two weeks out but three months later she did have trouble controlling her diplopia again, especially in down gaze. Luckily, a small amount of vertical prism and she was fusing and she liked spectacles in the first place and she's happy. So, does she have a selective medial compartment superior bleak parisus? One can speculate but we really don't have dynamic MRI that will really tell us this in these patients at this point. Let me just talk about one more case. I think this is bilateral and maybe even a bilateral medial compartment trochlear parisus. A 60 year old female director of medical directors at the University of Utah, torsional and vertical diplopia with a small head tilt going back to the teenage years but a worsen recently after she had cataract surgery which often happens with clarity of vision in patients with pre-existing strobismus. She had diplopia when driving and when reading. Let's look at her exam. Bit more complex than the last one but look at how much torsion there is. 15 degrees in primary gaze, 16 degrees in down gaze. That is a lot of torsion. And let's look at her exam. Again, a hypertrophy that's not large without much incompetence which would argue that the posterior tendon fibers at the superior bleak and the lateral compartment probably are not as affected. She does have a V-pattern and an esotropia in primary gaze. She doesn't have classic three-step Parks Bielszalski testing for superior bleak parisus but I think she probably has a mass bilateral superior bleak parisus. When patients are this complex you got to break down the deviation.  A superior bleak tuck might have been a good choice but it chose not to do that because she had such little incompetence of her hypertropia and her hypertropia was small in down gaze. So instead for her hypertropia a contralateral inferior rectus recession is my procedure of choice, the yolk muscle of the predic superior bleak. She also has the esotropia with the V-pattern. She needed a media rectus recession, one half tendon with infra placement for the V-pattern but keep in mind when you transpose recti muscles you induce torsion and if you infraplace the media recti you're going to make her extortion worse. So she had a bilateral herata edo. Bilateral with the goal of creating 15 to 20 degrees of mechanical encyclotorgen under general anesthesia which we can do with a Mendez ring. The refractive surgeons know what that is and the sturbismus surgeons are beginning to learn about it because you can mark the lid, mark the limbus, do your surgery, change torsion and measure how much you got mechanically. There are other ways to do this but this seems to be the most convenient easiest for me. So how does she do? She was fusing in all gaze positions except for extreme down gaze. Her extortion was five degrees in primary gaze, five in down gaze. So she did very well and mainly the point here is could she have a bilateral medial compartment superior oblique peresis? So what if I asked you, does the superior oblique muscle have two compartments? Well you'd probably say yes. Thank you.


Welcome to this session on the role of intelligence agencies. We have for some time now been developing a quite comprehensive program on geopolitics and international security. And in that work we have also been moving towards emphasizing and interacting with people who are in the area of intelligence, but also people who have opinions on this, and we've got together a very interesting panel to help us discuss this today. We have General Tjell Granhagen, who was until two weeks ago head of the Norwegian Intelligence Service, where Enrollee had for many years and many years in which things were changing fast. So he has left the service, he's happy to speak about what happened in the service, and you can ask him all the questions he ever wanted to know about. We also have Nico Selle, very happy to have you with us. She's the co-founder and co-chairman of Wicker, and if you don't know what that is, you will soon know. But just one key is that she leads the largest group of larger hacker community in the world, and she is active in hacking with a purpose, I think we'll hear more about in a second. We have John Chipman with us, a close friend and partner of the forum, head of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, who's been working on these issues for a long time as well. Very happy to have you with us. Minister Tarokono, who is Minister for National Public Safety in the Cabinet Office of Japan, and of course Japan, a country undergoing a major debate on its security role in the world as well. And then we have Jørgen Stock, who is the director, secretary general of Interpol, the international criminal police organization based in Ljul. That's not an intelligence service. We agree that we should point out that they do not do intelligence, but of course as police services and governments around the world, they will be recipients of information that is gathered through intelligence as well. And to chair us, we have David Rotkopp, who is a chief executive officer and editor of the Foreign Policy Group. Very happy to have you to chair this session. I would just say one sentence from my side as the managing board. I think the big question here is, are intelligence services too powerful or not powerful enough, or both at the same time? When you have the Snowden revelations, a lot of people will go around saying, hey, what's happening? Are they looking into my private communication? That can happen. We have to get it encrypted. We have to have rules of the game.  Are you not doing your job? And we're confusing the people like Granhagen, although he's not easily confused about this mixed message about how to deal with intelligence and how to organize intelligence services. So that's the question. I will now shut up and leave it to David to run the show. Thank you. Thank you very much.  This promises to be a very interesting discussion. I've been given very, very broad ambit for it to go, but there's been one very specific request, and that is that all of you vote before we begin on whether intelligence services are too powerful or not powerful enough. And I believe you can do this by going to w-e-f dot c-h slash vote, and then you'll have the opportunity to vote. And within seconds or minutes or a couple of days, we'll know what the answer is, and we'll see where you stand on this issue. And as you do the voting, I'll explain that we're first going to talk a little bit about whether intelligence capabilities are sufficient to keep us safe from the threats that we perceive are the greatest threats. And then we're going to try to move into next-generation threats, next-generation capabilities, and what the evolving social compact is in this new information age in which between big data and the proliferation of smart devices in the world, almost everyone is carrying with them useful intelligence, and therefore almost everyone becomes a potential target of intelligence inquiries. I should say I'm a little hesitant about this because I do see some friends here in the audience like John Negroponte, who used to be the Director of National Intelligence in the United States. And so it's going to be very difficult to glide over the issues here, and I hope that we have an in-depth conversation. I'm not sure when exactly the numbers come up, but oh, well, there. So 71% of you say that intelligence services are not powerful enough. I wonder if we held this in the village of Davos or somewhere off this mountain whether we'd get exactly the same result. I suspect not, and that may be telling in and of itself. Jurgen, let me start with you in the context of this. I think it's very useful to have the head of a police organization, particularly one as distinguished as Interpol here, because in combating the threats that we hear the most about, the police play an absolutely central role, and the coordination between intelligence services and police is an extremely sensitive and complex issue. Do you think, particularly in light of the recent developments in Europe, that that is working, the tools are in place, the intelligence services are powerful enough to actually support the needs of the police? Thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to thank Espen for highlighting that I'm not representing the intelligence services, but the police. Interpol is, I'd like to highlight that before I start, is connecting 190 member countries, so mainly the police services. These are our main counterparts. We are providing information. We build capacity, which is a big issue to fight the global phenomena. We train police officers. We coordinate cross-border operations, but we don't have any executive powers. I think that's important to understand the mechanism, but we support police to cooperate internationally and to share information. And I think my most important point today is to maybe not to talk about how powerful we are, but the question, could we be more effective if would we be better in sharing the information that is available? Of course, it's not a totally new topic, as we are all aware. We've been discussing that for a number of years, that we have to be better in sharing. And my main point is we need to be better, not just in sharing, but also in sharing specific information on a multilateral level. Why? Just to give you an example, I learned quite recently in Belgium, somebody, a police officer on the street, made an arrest and checked the name of the person and he became aware that this person was wanted by South Africa for a major offence. I think this example shows that the issues we are talking about really are global now and they show how effective our system is if we are going to share the relevant information, not just bilaterally, but using the multilateral platforms we have. So this is exactly what the UN Security Council highlighted in its resolution 2178, used the already existing global platforms to share your information. Two examples, then I stop. We have about 6,000 profiles of foreign terrorist fighters in our databases. It's important that this information is available not just at the level of the specialized units, but also at the levels of border stations and even the patrol officer in his car at the street who makes checks, checks person, checks cars, need to have access to this important information. The patrol officer on the street needs to be seen as a part of an early warning system. Second example, we have a... Before you go, I want to ask a question. You say 6,000 to the average person in the audience. Is that a large number or a small number? There are 30,000 people in ISIS. We started with 13 profiles a couple of years ago when we opened this database. So with the support from many governments, police services, we've been able to increase this number to 6,000. We know the official numbers of foreign terrorist fighters are around 30,000. I want to have all the 30,000 profiles in the Interpol database to be accessible on a global scale. I just want to establish it's a fraction of that. It's a fraction, you're right. Second example, we have a database called the SLDD, Stolen Lost Travel Documents. More than 55 million stolen and lost travel documents, amongst them several thousand from the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq, are part of this database. And we can see how effective the system can be. A global system can be if a border police officer has access to this information or a police officer on the street has access to this information, really to build a global network to effectively fight a global threat. General, I was very pleased to hear that you're now going to be able to open up all the secrets that you wouldn't have been able to talk about two weeks ago. Are we over-focused on terrorism and our intelligence efforts? I think it's important to be aware that the intelligence agencies have different types of tasks. Obviously, we are expected to warn our authorities on threats like terrorism, like threats in cyberspace, military threats against our countries. But we are also on a general basis going to keep our authorities informed about the global situation, the development in various regions in order to prepare them for the best possible decisions. So there are a number of tasks in which intelligence services are involved. Nico, just as we're beginning our survey here, I'd like your reaction to the poll. It doesn't shock me, necessarily, given this group. And what do you mean by this group? I think most people here haven't been lucky enough to be educated by the best hackers in the world. Once you've been to DEF CON, you learn some things. Actually, there's about 70 nation states that send spies to DEF CON every year. Tell everybody what DEF CON is. DEF CON is the largest hacker community in the world, but we have a gathering in Vegas every year where hackers come in and disclose vulnerabilities in systems to everyone at once, the entire world. There are heroes, really. They're the whistleblowers fighting this. And it's really important that when we find vulnerabilities in systems that everybody knows about it at once because the web is a global resource. And one of the ways that I see intelligence grabbing power that I don't think is good for any of us is by hoarding zero days. So they find a vulnerability in systems and they use them and hide them for their own offense. And that makes us all less secure. And I think we as a global society need to come together and fix these systems as once because we're all sharing the same system. All right. Well, that's one area where there's some concern about the reach of governments. There is a debate going on in Japan about the reach of governments. To make the case that governments like the Japanese government need more authority and more capability than they currently have. Well, my name is Taro Kono, head of the Japan's National Police Organization. In Japan, we don't have an intelligence agency. So the police organization does intelligence and the law enforcement. For some European countries, they wanted to separate the intelligence and the law enforcement for some historic reasons. And Japan, for some historic reasons, we wanted to put the law enforcement intelligence together under the Democratic police force. Japan is an island country and we are relatively homogeneous people. And Japanese language is a very strong barrier one time. But now terrorists could use cyber to attack the critical infrastructure. And you have a Google translator, so the language is not a barrier. And we have 20 million foreign travelers to Japan every year. So we are facing more threat for terrorism. And the Japanese police force is not allowed to wiretap. Well, we could wiretap to investigate crimes or let it commit it. And we usually do 10 wiretapping a year. And conspiracy is not a crime in Japan. So we are not able to participate in UN transnational organized crime convention because we don't have conspiracy laws. The Japanese people and a lot of media have been happy with it. But because of the terrorism attack in Paris and all those cyber crimes, we are now thinking, are we ready or is Japanese police organization strong enough to fend off terrorism? We are hosting G7 summit and the ministerial meetings in Japan this year. And 2020 Olympic game is coming up. So we are at the crossroad. Should we increase capability or should we be content with what we have? There is unequal distribution among the countries of the world of intelligence capabilities and access to data. The UK, the U.S., 5I countries have special superpower status in this intelligence world. Talk a little bit about what you see as the responsibilities and challenges that go with that status. Certainly, well, first to bring in, I think, to make the point that there is no international law that governs international espionage. There is an international law on conflict, there is international law of the sea, there is international law on humanitarian intervention. But there is no international law that prohibits international espionage. So the constraint, legal constraint on any intelligence service is uniquely the constraint that the host country, the domestic legal system places on itself. So some countries, going to the point of whether they are powerful or not, have no domestic legal constraint on the operation of their intelligence services. I would imagine that is the case with North Korea. Other countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have a fairly elaborate domestic legal structure for what their intelligence agents cannot do. Going to Mr. Konow's point about your 10 wiretaps a year, the UK Home Secretary will probably sign two thousand warrants a year. So that's several every day in order to allow MI5 to intercept traffic. The United Kingdom has a comparative advantage because in the last century they laid the fiber optic cables, cable and wireless did that. So the United Kingdom's GCHQ, along with the US National Security Agency and the intelligence agencies of Canada, New Zealand and Australia, between them, they really have a high percentage of the state manufactured signals intelligence in the world. And I think since Snowden, certainly in the United States and recently in the United Kingdom, there has been, I wouldn't, I would put it over 85%, I would imagine. So it's important to say that any country that has a national telecommunications network has a nation's signals intelligence capacity of its own. So the unique qualities that the Five Eyes had and especially the United Kingdom and the United States are now more heavily distributed amongst other countries that have national telecommunications networks and an ability to engage in some signals intelligence activity which in the past they might not have been able to do. But we are now in the United Kingdom in the midst of an intense debate. We are going to pass a new bill in Parliament, the draft investigatory powers bill that now has a kind of double lock system in order to ensure that we have a stronger covenant between the intelligence services and our public opinion. There will be a ministerial signature required and also a judicial second opinion required before warrants are issued. There will be exceptions for national security where in the celebrated phrase, the home secretary or the foreign secretary is woken up at three o'clock in the morning. You can sign a warrant but within five days a judicial review has to take place that that warrant was properly procured. So the domestic legal environment in the United States and the United Kingdom I think is becoming stronger and needs to become stronger in order to have that public support for the intelligence activity that still needs to take place to secure our citizens. So we seem to be at a kind of a moment of some tension here in the sense that in terms of the intelligence that we've got in terms of threats like terrorist threat we may not have enough. We are growing but there's still a significant amount to go in certain countries such as Japan. There are severe constraints on the government in terms of protecting themselves. Meanwhile capabilities are proliferating rapidly as a result of technological changes and new data sources that may be of interest are proliferating. We're going for what observer it is, 20 billion devices on the internet, 50 billion by 2020. It just changes the landscape in terms of all of this. John points out there's no international law affecting espionage. There's not even a clear definition of what espionage is. In fact in a sort of celebrated moment before the US Congress a few months ago the John Clappers sat in front of the Congress and said that a whole group of things that might be described as espionage were just really the way countries go about their business nowadays. And we're in this kind of definitional phase. What is really spying? What isn't spying? What's normal? What's not normal? And I wanted to turn to you Niko and you seem to have a comment you want to throw in so feel free to do that. But we seem to be at sort of a technological turning point for the planet and we haven't really had a debate about the underlying philosophical and legal parameters with which we should be operating beyond that turning point. And I'm just sort of wondering what your view is on that. I agree. I think with intelligence and law enforcement you have to be really careful what you wish for here because I think by getting more power in ways like with the Investigatory Act which would make wicker my company illegal in your country actually harms us more. So one of the most important lessons I learned was from Thomas Cross, a very famous hacker in 2009. He taught us all how to break into lawful intercept machines. And at that point it was very clear that a backdoor for the good guys will always equal a backdoor for the bad guys. In fact, I think this is such an important lesson that we brought him back to teach the kids how to break into lawful intercept machines this year. So by giving yourselves wiretap power or more power you're actually causing more security harm than good. And I think if you take it a step further with the crypto wars in the 60s and 70s it was a very different time. We're a global corporation right now and we're all connected. So let's just play this out a little bit. We give the UK a backdoor because we trust the UK. We're friends with you guys. Let's say the US, right? Do we trust them with the master keys? They weren't able to keep spies entire sexual history records safe, right? With the OPM breach, like how could they keep keys safe? But then let's say, okay, let's get back that. Okay, well now we've set precedent that the UK we have to give a backdoor to the UK and then we have to give a backdoor to China.  Could I put the other point of principle here which is that we still live in a world of states. Governments owe a duty of care to their citizens and the citizens expect their states within a clear legal context to be able to protect them. Public highways are surveyed. All sorts of things are surveyed every day. The question of principle is whether the internet should become a no-go area for governments or an area in which the governments don't have a particularly right to intervene in order to regulate the legal activity as between their citizens or citizens of other countries. And I think there is an important philosophical point there. My judgment is that in carefully circumstances governments should be able to understand what citizens are doing on the internet when it affects public security. On the question here of how one deals with difficult governments the question is not to apply a double standard but a single standard. So if you trust the domestic regulation of the United Kingdom to know that these backdoors will be used in only very circumscribed areas you might be able to justify to yourself why that is done and still have an answer to the North Korea industry why you wouldn't provide it back to them because their domestic legal structure is not... There are other questions of principle too and one of them which relates to your point is protect what? Protect whom? Protect whom from what? And so everybody walks around, in my mind the image is a little bit like from a Peanuts comic, do you remember the old Peanuts comic? There was a character named Pigpen and Pigpen walked around and there was a little cloud of dust at his feet and this is what we all look like in data terms. We're walking around and we're throwing off all this data all the time. Well the question is whose data is that? Is it the person who's throwing it off? Is it the company that's collecting it? Is it the government in which the data is being thrown off? Is it anybody who has an interest in that data? Since that data is the foundational element of the global economy going forward it's the basic unit of economic measure of the global economy. It's the value. Who gets that value? Privacy laws make the decision about who gets that value and you have the US heading off in one direction with a privacy standard, the Europeans heading in another direction with a privacy standard, a whole set of other countries that are more authoritarian and yet another direction with privacy standard and so we have to answer multiple questions of principle. Are we getting precariously close to a point where this debate is going to make people more dangerous, more at risk in your view in terms of terror threats? Or is this precisely the right debate to be having right now? I think that the debate, of course the police operates in most and all of our member countries in a strict legal framework. Also that the sharing internationally is, there is of course a law allowing to share or not allowing to share. So it depends on the legal framework. To a certain extent as we know it depends also on the commitment to share, the cultural background maybe, so there are still opportunities in the already existing system to be more effective. The question you raised, of course, that's something the lawmakers have to decide at the end. I think it's the police role to identify gaps in our work. So when I was a young police officer, of course I was able on the basis of a court order to search houses, to take records, to take most of the time it was paperwork, which then we read nowadays in the light of encryption anonymization, of course we have problems and we have to tell the lawmakers that at a certain point we can't start investigations or we have to stop investigations, take the example of child exploitation in the internet without certain information. We are not able to do anything to get behind the criminals. So this is something we have to explain. I think we all remember the director of the FBI, Jim Comey, raising the discussion in the US about going dark, which is a major issue and we have to identify these gaps, but of course at the end it's a decision that has to be taken by the lawmakers, but it requires a debate on privacy issue on the one hand and security gaps on the other hand and balancing these interests. Of course as law enforcement we understand that. It's very misleading and unproductive to say that privacy and security are on opposite teams. They're on the same team and by having private communications we are all more secure. Spies use wicker every day to fight terrorists. It's no different than a teenager's private communications. Yeah, but again, you can't have security without privacy and the other way around, two sides of a metal of course. So it's not to play one against the other, but of course I think the challenge is to balance these interests in light of huge technological developments that's going on and again the police role is to identify gaps where we can't continue investigating or where we can close security gaps or prevent terrorist attacks from taking place. We have to face the same things that we've been facing with policing from the beginning of time, which is crime is a rare occurrence and there are other things that are day to day occurrences which deserve protection within that context even more so because they happen more frequently generally. Yeah, I was not surprised by the result of the little poll you made here with four out of five saying that intelligence agencies are not powerful enough. I think there is a and I think you would probably have the same answer also if you ask the broader public. We've made polls in Norway on the confidence of intelligence service and police security services and it's pretty high. People in general want to ensure national security they want to ensure public security and in a changing world I think they realize that intelligence services need to be empowered to do that. There will always be discussions to what extent should intelligence and security services be allowed to do that. I think we need that discussion. I think it's extremely important that there is transparency. If anything good came out of Snowden I think the good thing was that I think leaders in intelligence and security services today realize that there has to be a dialogue on these issues. They will never go into details on methods and sources and capabilities but there needs to be a discussion and there needs to be an understanding in general on how these services operate in executing their very important work on behalf of the society. Do you agree? I think in Japan the debate is still lagging behind. We are debating what needs to be protected. Some people say we say we need to protect people. Some people say we need to protect constitution. The Japanese constitution the interpretation of the Japanese constitution was we don't have collective defense. So Japan has to defend our country independently. And this year, last year we finally changed the interpretation. We could allow government to exercise power of collective defense to defend Japan. So the next step is what we are going to defend against terrorism. I think we need to tell people the real threat is coming from terrorism. It's right there. It's a clear and present danger. And the law enforcement or intelligence community need to have more power to deal with it. And people still may not believe it. So the poll was very shocking to me. I thought it would have been overwhelmingly the intelligence community today to be very powerful. But it was totally opposite. So I think we still need to... But it's possible that audiences at Dallas could be wrong. I really hope that's the case. I think we still need to talk to our people that this is a danger we are facing. And this is what we need to do. We really need to convince it. I think Japan may be in a different league. Let me ask you two questions. Would you get the result that the general thinks he would get if he were taking it back home in Norway? You think the general public would be broadly supportive of stronger intelligence services? What the general public supports is the quality of intelligence service in the UK. There wasn't in fact a poll taken in the UK and I think something like 72% of the British public thought their intelligence services performed a proper and proportionate role. So there is strong public support going forward into the the world of the future. One of the things that I see is that I think we've spent the first sort of 15 years of the 21st century fighting the last wars of the 20th century. And that a lot of the terrorism that we see is a manifestation of certain parts of the world to keep up with progress and it's produced unrest and it has spread out consequences for all of us. But that as we get into the 21st century a whole set of new issues and threats emerge from a wired world a world where in 5, 6, 7, 10 years from now the vast majority of people on the planet are going to be connected in a man-made system for the first time. Almost all of economic activity is going to take place inside that system. It's going to change in its nature. Education, the delivery of government services essentially everything is going to take place within that system. And so we need to develop new rules of the road to address those 21st century challenges as opposed to over focusing the structure of the intelligence community on 20th century challenges. What do you see as the new challenges emerging from the 21st century that ought to be coloring this discussion as much as perhaps are concerned about terror? Well, the principal change in the world of intelligence agencies has been from a near exclusive focus on interstate espionage and trying to discover secrets that are actually being held by governments to addressing many of these trans national issues that on occasion requires intercepting the communications of individuals or groups that are non-state actors in the proliferation of these means of communication and the variety of instruments that are being used to put enormous pressures on intelligence agencies. But I would add the point that hasn't yet been made while there is an extraordinary amount of signals intelligence and national technical means that goes on the bigger intelligence agencies and the better intelligence agencies still need to rely a great deal on human intelligence and the human intelligence task today is extraordinarily challenging giving the difficulty of penetrating non-state actors as opposed to penetrating state actors during the Cold War inserting an agent in Warsaw or in Moscow was a doable affair there was trade craft that could do that you could bribe people and the like now when you think of the challenges that a British national would have inserting himself into an ISIL network in Syria and getting trusted by that network and after a period of time being able credibly to report back what their plans were those are very challenging tasks and I think there will be very few intelligence agencies in the world including the very best ones that will be able to insert human agents in the variety of transnational activities that are being taken so I think that will be a big pressure and will make people judge that the challenges on intelligence agencies are really very large today and much larger than they were in the past. Okay well that's a challenge to intelligence agencies what do you see as emerging challenges associated with this kind of quantum leap that we're in the midst of making in terms of the nature of life in the connected world well let me agree with John for a minute that was something we didn't expect to happen here today so which is at DEF CON every year Chris Hagnaggy hosts a contest called the social engineering contest and they get 100% of the targets 100% of the time and they don't even need to send agents away they use the phone and Facebook and through those two pieces of information alone they're able to manipulate people to get the information they want and this is the kind of tool that people and intelligence world should and can use instead of putting holes in our systems and our private communications that both threatens human rights and threatens the people fighting the terrorists. I think on the other end of it something that we keep track of really closely is again private communications and looking around the world at where it's potentially illegal or not illegal and it almost maps exactly to the totalitarian regimes these are the places where they are surveilling their citizens on a daily basis and I always say UK really you want to join the red team because you're not usually on that side right but we can use the governments that are surveilling their people every day we can use that against them and we should okay I think that's an unfair comment in a way because you know when I'm glad we're returning to normal here well look in the United States in the 1950s the FBI had the authority if it started judicial warrant to intercept a first class piece of post, steam open the envelope read the communication, put the letter back in the post and send it on its way and it would do that rarely and only when it was able to get a judicial warrant and the debate about privacy and security in the United States was not what it is today this difference in technology has changed the intensity and nature of the debate but the issue of principle is still the same can democratically elected governments in carefully circumscribed circumstances intercept a communication in order to prevent a horrific and I think that democratic societies would wish those governments to do this in these circumscribed ways and total privacy in the internet is not compatible but there was a phrase in what you just said which was in carefully circumscribed ways that's all we have in the United Kingdom the United Kingdom is not joining authoritarian government it's got a very rigorous law but has not done it in circumscribed ways and that's the government of the United States which seems to have determined that the Fourth Amendment doesn't cover metadata and yet metadata is precisely the kind of thing that you might have found in a notebook in the 1950s at the time that you were steaming this open and because it determined that it did not cover metadata it therefore allowed the mass warehousing of certain kinds of information in not circumscribed ways and that illustrates precisely the tension that we are dealing with here partially because a lot of lawmakers a lot of the people who are supposed to be grappling with these problems don't even understand the core issues they don't have the ability to have the conversation I had a conversation once with a guy who was a former top US intelligence official former CIA director and he said he used to go in and brief the cabinet or the National Security Council on these issues and he said they looked at him like he was Rain Man like he was speaking not understanding his word does the newness of some of these issues affect the competency of lawmakers to actually make reasonable judgments around these questions? Maybe I think it's the role again of law enforcement and to limit my comment on the role of law enforcement to identify the gaps we have and I fully share your view in the past we've been able to do on the basis of court order as we do today encryption, anonymization, mass data these are the huge problems all around the globe in effectively doing law enforcement and catch the criminals and there is transition going on so we need to develop let's say a criminalistic 4.0 now following these huge technological developments and they don't wait until decisions are made or new law is established in the member countries we heard a lot here during the days in Davos about industry 4.0 the smart car, smart home the internet of everything so that provides huge opportunities for criminals to attack our systems our private computers our critical infrastructures and of course terrorists can make use of this as we see that the underground economy is now more and more professional you don't need to be an expert to attack a system I could do that simply sitting on the couch on my sofa and buying the stuff from the underground economy and the internet and that leads to the difficult again the difficult discussions to balance freedom and security and that's the challenge for all our societies but again technology moves forward and we try to do our job in protecting societies and that's the difficulty we have a lot of questions all together no congratulations that's your job to write the question but I want to try you're now two weeks out of this job so I'm sure you're going to be completely open with me here are there issues of competency within senior government officials about understanding the nature of these technological challenges it is difficult I mean but I think from my experience we had a good dialogue with our authorities and I think the methods and the work of intelligence services is pretty good pretty well understood in the Norwegian government but let me make another comment because you introduced the thermal metadata here with the challenges that we face both when it comes to international terrorism and in cyberspace the problem is not to identify the known actors the known actors are easy to monitor, they're easy to find out there the problem is the actors that we don't know about terrorism as a phenomenon has changed radically over the last three or four years at least here in Europe before it used to be something that happened out there and was prepared out there in the world that was then exported into our home countries today we have the phenomena of jihadism and we have the remote radicalization of people in our home countries we don't know the actors in this play and in order to identify them we have the possibility to use metadata we would be absolutely in the black in the same way when it comes to the serious cyber threats against our governments against our societies if we weren't able to use the access to metadata we would be completely blind so we have to be honest about these things we cannot solve all problems I've heard politicians saying that we will give intelligence services the tools that they need but we need to understand that dealing with the unpredictable dealing with the unknown threats is a very difficult matter you make a good case but I think it suggests that a debate ought to take place about this a public debate about it and the level of awareness within the public about the nature of these issues is quite low and so that creates a problem associated with it Nico you want to jump in I want to come to you in a second I want to come back to something and I'd like you to think a little bit about the hierarchy of threats every time I sit in a discussion about the requirement that we have massive intelligence capabilities and surveillance the example that's always given is terrorism terrorism is not an existential threat to any major country in the world terrorism takes a toll in the last year 20 or 30,000 people it's tragic most of it is in a handful of countries the number of times it affects most of the rest of the world is extremely limited there are other greater threats that are out there or cyber crime and I'd like to talk a little bit about the hierarchy of threats and whether we're letting one particular kind of threat drive this discussion too much so there are I would say three secure messaging apps in the world that I would trust of those wicker is the only one that doesn't have any metadata attached to it in other words we can't even tell who our users are who they're talking to when or how often they're the one in the world that does that that's why all the spies use us that's why they're not using the other encryption techniques because this is very important for spies and human rights activists it's a key tool and then I guess going back to what John said with Hoover and the FBI I consider that a huge stain on American history and I would take it a step back further to the American Revolution and George Washington had a theory and he said we're not going to be like the Brits and I refuse to spy on my citizens and censor their information and that's when they created the U.S. Post Office and this is what makes a strong social society because you need to have strong social discourse and now that we're all one society we all need to have strong social discourse and we all should follow George Washington's lead important point I'd like to come back in a second to how the global trends are going in this regard but let's talk about this hierarchy of threats are we too focused on terrorism yes I think so two things Japan is good at is controlling guns or banning guns I mean in U.S. much much more people are killed by guns than terrorism you know before talking about the metadata or you know wiretapping they should do something about the gun control the other thing we are good at is immigration control keep tracking of foreign workers in Japan and I think that probably a higher priority and we're also worried about the terrorism but probably more so in the cyber world ISIL may not be able to reach Japan and do terrorism just like in Paris but if they start cyber attack on critical infrastructure the distance doesn't really matter if we are not ready for it Japan could be an easy target so the Japanese police force is stepping up measures against the cyber crime so that's the hierarchy I think what do you think well the fact that a threat is not existential is not a reason why one shouldn't seek to counter it if not only what was going to counter existential threats but if there is no security then we could disband most of our police force and most of our army so I don't see the existentiality of a threat as a reason why we should encounter it I think it all depends where you sit of course I mean if you are sitting in Syria I think terrorism is a pretty high threat to your local village and to your municipal security to your regional security in the UK we don't have a major international security threat that is imminent and present but we have to have armed forces to defend our security and to project power to protect our citizens abroad and also to engage in humanitarian interventions the expiltration of citizens there's a wide variety of totally proper purposes to which our armed forces are being put our intelligence agencies work across a wide variety of issues now a lot more foreign policies I think informed by intelligence information that might have been in the past by the way it's very heavily lawyered about 40 years ago MI6 might have had one part-time lawyer now there are probably 40 full-time lawyers that work in MI6 we in the United Kingdom as the United States are a society of laws and of rules and intelligence agencies effectively with strong public support and that public support exists I do think that terrorism is a very important security risk to the United Kingdom for the reason that Kel said that in our European societies we have unfortunately a lot of homegrown jihadis people from communities that have been too separated from society that haven't been assimilated or integrated with strategic getters in the United Kingdom where people feel separated from the community and therefore being more easily radicalized over the internet or abroad and our citizens expect us to be able to ensure that those individuals don't go on to perform terrorist acts in the United Kingdom in the last six months I think probably seven terrorist acts that might have created a certain loss of life in London were prevented by the intelligence services that's a very significant number seven of the sides that took place possibly in Paris last November so they're active against a very present threat and I don't think anybody's arguing and certainly by posing the question I'm not arguing that terrorism isn't important but in the context of the US and in the context of your point the number of people who died in terrorists related incidents in the United States is one six hundredth number of people who died of gun related deaths and that it's half the number of people who died of diabetes sugar is a much greater threat in the United States than terrorism but we don't have the same kind of debate about it there's a more compelling statistic which I think that 41 people were killed in the United States as a result of toaster accidents and that's more than we're killed on behalf of the public toasters are very dangerous that's a subject of our next panel but let me just remind you that the priorities of intelligence services are not priorities that the intelligence services make up themselves they reflect first of all the political guidance here which again reflects the needs of the society the needs of the people so of course the focus on terrorism here comes from the psychological effect that terror has in a society the fear that terror has made just think about the fundamental changes to transportation air transportation that 9-11 made globally to us that is why terror has such a high priority and why we are expected to do something about terrorism just this year beginning on the 1st of January this year what happened just in these few days globally on a global scale this is really a challenge and I'm afraid to say it will increase very much so our membership the 190 member countries they for sure they request us to provide support in three areas terrorism, organized crime and cyber crime these are the main priorities where they expect us to provide support again I'm not minimizing but for example cyber crime is an area where we haven't really touched upon this debate touched upon it in little bits but clearly that's going to grow it's also going to change it will tremendously grow change the nature and big data world everybody becomes a target and the responsibility for defense against cyber crime is dramatically tilted in the direction of the private sector and so that's going to change the balance and how one deals with some of these threats and the private sector is going to have to know how to cope with that and when you mention cyber here I think that illustrates the new area that is coming into this so far a lot of focus has been on cyber crime but I think we need to look at cyber in a more broader context and the threat in cyber towards national security and I think when we start understanding the potential threats the potential hazards that come with our interlinked digital systems we will realize that the potential threat of bad guys or state actors operating in that domain is going to could have far broader implications than terror itself so we've got four minutes left and what I want to do is I want to go to each one of you and I want to give you 30 seconds and I'd like you to make the case for one power that ought to be added to intelligence services because they need it and don't have it or one power that ought to be taken away from the services because they've got it and they don't need it and then we're going to leave 30 seconds to poll you all again on this question that we opened with so go ahead we have to work against fragmentation of information we have to better cooperate amongst law enforcement with the intelligence there is still room for improvement and as this was mentioned and also was a topic here in Davos I would underline your last comment there I think broader dialogue more transparency between law enforcement, government intelligence, private sector is absolutely essential here we need to keep that dialogue going in order to understand the needs understand the challenges that we face so I welcome very much that you put the question back up now I just want to give you a chance please vote so when I get to the end of these three we've got the answer I think intelligence services need to be trusted by the people and politics or politician need to sort of shouldn't use intelligence service to get into the dirty politics the politics is polarized in many countries but the politicians shouldn't really get the intelligence service into this and we need to get the confidence high there needs to be a dialogue between the intelligence agencies in the ICT community as to what would be the circumstances of proper and proportionate collaboration between the two I think that will still take some time the United Kingdom had a special envoy to the United States to talk about this issue with the ICT companies and I think now the debate is beginning to spring back in terms of a sensible relationship between the United Kingdom's intelligence agencies the United States intelligence agencies in the ICT community when the ICT community is convinced that there is a judicious legal context in which specific interventions will take place I would say that the intelligence world needs to have less power in terms of putting holes in the web that can impact us all and they also need to do a better job of utilizing the holes that the bad people have in their systems too because it's a lot easier to own someone's phone than to break encryption that all of us use super helpful what's the result of the poll well there's been a slight slight return to no there's been a slight adjustment here among all of you clearly this is a complicated issue it is you know I do not by any means suggest that we ought to make light of the threat that's posed by terrorism and the tools that we have are not necessarily adequate to meeting that threat right now and I think we have some that we need to enhance meanwhile we should also beware the slippery slope that has been the hallmark of the post 9-11 era that suggests that if a small group of people can inflict a large amount of damage on a big city that any small group of people anywhere can pose a threat because when you accept that argument that anybody anywhere can pose a threat then you begin to carve away at civil liberties in a way that's extremely dangerous for societies we are going to face these problems in much greater scale as we move forward into this big data era into this industrial age that's why this debate is so important that's why it's so important that you take it home to all of your countries and continue it thank you very much to this great panel for a great discussion thank you very much


the session on sustainable value framework. So, if you remember at the different point of time during the course like when we are discussing why sustainability is important or why sustainability is imperative, what should be the strategy, what should be the corporate agenda, so that the sustainability can be achieved or we can work on the sustainability issues. And at all this point of time the two things that was coming as the coming as main focus is that when organization they are doing it how should they do this, so that it achieves the end objective of being sustainable. And second when they are doing it what kind of benefit they are getting or what are the possible cost they are going to incur. So, in that background we will now discuss briefly the sustainable value framework given by Stuart Hart. So, this is typically this framework links the challenge of global sustainability to the creation of shareholder value of the firm. It means when we are when the organization when the corporate is addressing the challenge for the global sustainability also simultaneously how it can be a win-win situation by creating the shareholder value for the firms. So, here in this framework what is typically being addressed identify the strategy and practices that contribute to more sustainable world while simultaneously driving the shareholder value. Recognize that company employ the multiple sustainability initiative simultaneously and help to assess the portfolio of activity get a good overview of a company sustainability strategy and finally, it helps to identify the business opportunity what we are trying to focus in last few session. Now, this is what the sustainable value framework given by Hart and if you look at the time period is two. One the activity or practices were what we are doing to manage today's business and few for building the tomorrow's opportunity. Other dimension of this framework is that which one is internal and which one need to be done through the internal changes and which one need to be done through the external changes. So, nurturing whether it is through nurturing the internal capability or it is encouraging the external constituency. So, here the core dimension of sustainable strategy with the different linkage to firm performance and value creation is given through the framework. Now, let us see what each of this quadrant showing in this matrix. So, what is pollution prevention and what is pollution prevention? As we know this minimize the waste and emission from the current facilities and operations. Second is product stewardship this is engaging the stakeholder and managing the full life cycle of the today's product. Clean technology developing and deploying the next generation clean technology and base of the pyramid is also we call the vision what we are looking for the future that is co-creating new business of to unmet need of the poor and undeserved. Now, this all these the dimensions whether it is pollution prevention products towards if clean technology or base of the pyramid this has been mapped in this matrix either for part of the today's business or tomorrow's opportunity or this can be achieved through by changing the internal capability or nurturing the internal capability or engaging with the external constituency. And the end result over here is that we are going to get the sustainable value by using this framework. Now, this strategy and practice will help in reduce the cost and risk that is pollution prevention, enhance reputation and legitimacy that is through products towards it, accelerate innovation and repositioning that is through the clean technology and crystallize the growth path and trajectory that is the base of the pyramid. This is crucial to the creation of shareholder value the challenge for the firm is to decide which action and initiative to pursue and how best to manage them. Because now we know these are the strategy these are the practices and also the end result what the organization they are going to get it by practicing it. But the challenge over here is that to decide which action initiative to pursue and how best to manage them. Now, Steve Kennedy he by taking this sustainable value framework of Hart and Milstein 2003 he has added the drivers and also the corporate payoff when you get into these practices. So, now here if you see the time period is 2, one is today or second one is the future that is tomorrow and where the changes are where it can be achieved that is through the internal and external. Let us start with strategy pollution prevention. So, as we know this is minimize waste and emission from operation and what are the drivers for this strategy? The drivers for this strategy is pollution consumption and waste. Now, what will be the corporate payoff if they are addressing or if they are taking this pollution prevention cost and risk reduction this we have already discussed. Similarly, also the products stewardship it integrate the stakeholder views into the business process, the corporate payoff is reputation, legitimacy, the drivers is civil society transparency and connectivity. This also we discussed when we have addressed that why the firm or why the organization they should address the sustainability challenge. Similarly, now coming to the strategy of clean technology it develop the sustainable competency for the future the corporate payoff is that innovation and repositioning if you remember your eco branding strategy. So, if you are doing the product differentiation through innovation through repositioning then you are developing a eco friendly product environmental friendly product for the future. The drivers for this strategy is disruption, clean technology and the ecological footprint or the carbon footprint. And the last one is sustainability vision it create a share roadmap for meeting the unmet need and the corporate payoff is growth trajectory and the drivers over here if you remember about this we have discussed in the very first class when you are talking about that why the when the changing landscape with respect to environment, with respect to economy, with respect to technology, with respect to innovation that leads to go for a go for a sustainability vision. So, where we create a share roadmap for meeting the unmet need and the driver over here is population, poverty and inequality. So, Stuart had given the sustainability value framework for the organization that how the strategy, how the practices can be followed either by making the internal changes, nurturing the internal capability or through the external engagement for few of them the payoff would be today and for few of them the payoff would be tomorrow, but at the end of it it will create sustainable value for the organization and possibly in the simple term whatever the sustainability initiative whatever the sustainability actions the organization is going to take it is going to give us give the corporate or the organization at the return is in term of the sustainable value or in term of the profit or in both the tangible and the intangible benefit. Thank you.