Welcome everybody. I feel the light is changing. It seems like it's time to start. Welcome. This session will be by Brandon Reheck about data protection. What do we actually need to protect when we talk about data protection? Are we understanding it correctly, currently? Floris, yours. Thanks a lot. Okay, thanks for you to come here to listen to what does data protection actually protect. The subtitle is why we have to stop talking about individual privacy and more talk about social sustainability. Maybe first I say something about myself so you know who's talking and from which perspective. I'm a research associate at the Weizmann Institute for the Network Society. I'm a doctoral candidate and research are there and I'm doing research on digitalization and sustainability, tech fictions, data protection and well unsurprisingly and IT security. My background is computer science and philosophy at Humboldt University and Freya University and I'm also active in the Forum Computer Scientists for Peace and Social Responsibility, the Society for Computer Science and the ethics part and with Amnesty International, Germany, Human Rights in the Digital Age. Okay, so what are we going to talk about and why? First I want to talk about some basic terms because I noticed that when we talk about data protection it's usually a lot of things come together and a lot of people understand different things which I think is okay that this happens but we should be aware of the differences to have a fruitful discussion especially when we merge it with a concept of social sustainability. Then I will come into a problem description so what does data protection actually try to solve or address? Then some examples about data protection theory to deepen our understanding and practice and then I want to talk about some smoke streams and non-solutions that are usually posed as solution to the data protection problem as I would like to call it. Then I want to compare it or merge it somehow with the social sustainability briefly as a starting point for discussion. Then there will be some references and then we can exchange our ideas towards what I've been saying now. So some basic terms. First I would like to differentiate data protection, data protection law and data security. Data protection itself is a social science term because it's about society, it's about humans, it's about protection of things that are not technical. Then we have data protection law which is when we talk about GDPR or other regulations which is the legal form of data protection. Then we have data security which is informatics or computer science term. This is usually how we will get into this a bit more in a second. How to actually deal with the data and the data processing itself. The interesting thing here is that each of them have their own rules of discourse. What is being protected? What are the measurements and the tools being used? Sometimes they don't even agree on what they are about. That's why we talk about this. That's very interesting because the problem description always defines the solution. It defines the solution space itself. Then we talk about data all the time. I think it's also important to somehow shed some light on to the meaning of data information. First data protection law. We see it protects individuals and groups. This is the purpose and the protection object is personal data. This is the first interesting thing here. We want to protect individuals and people and we do it by protecting personal data. There's a difference here which is in a way you could say tax laws should maybe protect people with less income but we look at money. There are many other ways of achieving this but the thing we look at in data protection law is personal data. Of course we could also say are there other ways of reaching the same goal if we maybe regulate other things. Especially if we talk about law, the GDPR, the general data protection regulation valid all across Europe, implements Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Especially I would like to underline Article 1. Human dignity is invi-lable and it must be respected and protected on Article 8, the protection of personal data. You could say any processing of personal data by an organization constitutes an interference with fundamental rights of a data subject because you're interfering with a person if you do some data processing that affects them. That's why it's called the data subject, the subject of the data being processed. In data protection law we have certain principles in the GDPR which is lawfulness, fairness, transparency, purpose limitation, data minimization, accuracy, storage limitation, integrity, confidentiality and accountability. What I find interesting is that we have a big data protection discussion that we should regulate more some of those aspects while at the same time they are already being regulated in the GDPR principles but that seems to be forgotten all the time. For example, a look at the big discussion about fairness currently. Fairness is explicitly one of the GDPR principles but now sometimes or oftentimes it seems like fairness is a new invention since the up-come of AI but fairness is a principle in all data processing and which is of course quite logical because I can infringe and discriminate people without AI. You know, that's not a new problem. Maybe there's a new quantity coming up but then the question would be how to adapt what we already know to the new situation maybe with machine learning. The lawfulness of processing and data protection law would be consent, contract, compliance. I don't go into details there but consent is kind of the individual willingness to let data be processed, contract is if I want certain service and the necessary data protection, then the necessary data processing then is legal, compliance with law for example for archiving, vital interests for example if it's a life and death situation then it's always legal according to the GDPR to process any information to protect the person. Public interest and legitimate interests. Legitimate interest is a very interesting point here but I don't want to go deep. This would be a different talk. Legitimate interest is the cause of many problems we have right now but this is not the topic here. Okay, the next thing is data security or IT security. The classic protection goals of data security are confidentiality, integrity and availability. So you can somehow from a technical point of perspective you could say it's the permissions to read, write and execute. If I say who can read it and who can't then I'm controlling confidentiality. If I say who can change and write onto the data then it's about integrity and if we talk about execution, this is kind of you know the flexible but it's if the service or the data is available to me. And a violation in data security would be if one of those three are violated. So if people can access this who should not, people who can change it who should not or people can have access to a service they should not or people who should be able to access it cannot. And those three are somehow differentiated because if I destroy a computer I'm certainly not violating the confidentiality but I'm certainly violating the integrity of it. That's why we differentiate this. Interesting here is that data security in its pure form secures the data processing and the existing data itself for the for the processor itself. We will see later on why this is important. And in Germany it should be mentioned that since 2008 there is a fundamental right for individuals to have the guarantee of confidentiality of integrity and confidentiality and integrity of the systems they use. I like to call it the fundamental right to cyborg because in the explanation, the German constitutional court said that we are so dependent on such systems that we have the right to confidentiality and integrity being agreed. Yeah, guaranteed, which I find quite interesting. So how about we now we talked about data protection law and about IT security or data security, but how about data protection itself? Well, I want to give a little background first on society why which is which is important to just a brief little sprinkle. Right now we live in a society based on division of labor. It's a it's a world with a multitude of actors and those actors have different roles in our society. And there are power asymmetries between individuals and an organization. What do I mean by this society based on division of labor? This means that not all of us are experts in all other areas. Most of the time we're at least expert in one area and we're lay people in all other areas. So we're very dependent on each other. And why is that why is it relevant? Well, if I say, well, let's, you know, let's, let's, let's suggest a certain solution, which is very technical. Then this solution applies only to the people who can actually operate them to ask a certain solution.  This means we all have to educate ourselves there, which as a as a person with a technological background, I like. But of course, people who are more into, let's say, food regulation would say exactly the same. And purple people who are more into, let's say, train safety would maybe say the same. But in the society based on division of labor, we found means to say, well, maybe there should be minimum standards. So we can access a train or we can drive a car. Okay, with car, we need to drive a license, but still, or we can go into supermarket and not get killed by the wrong decisions or not get big harm with the wrong decisions. And now, if we look at the power asymmetries, of course, there's a difference between an individual and organization. Organization can be a state, can be like a business, but it could also be an NGO. And usually, those organizations have much more means and have much more options to assert their own interests in a social relationship. And this is the definition, at least for Max Weber, for power as a chance to do exactly that, even against opposition. You can differentiate this to enforce a certain action, you can prevent a certain action, or you have the power to define a certain discourse, how we talk about things. And now, when we take this background of a society with a division of labor into this world of computerization, we see we have computers everywhere, nearly ubiquitous computerization and the digitalization which we now call the process, we now call digitalization has been going on for around 50 years, you could say. And we have computer supported information processing of organizations, governments, businesses and NGOs, as I mentioned before, exactly those organizations who, in principle, have more power already than an individual. And in addition, you could say there's also no individual decision anymore to participate in this kind of computerization or not. Even if you would like to work on paper, at a certain point, you will, if you do your taxes or if you buy a ticket or something, you know, all those things, if you get money from the pension fund or you pay into the pension fund, of course all of this is digitized. So, to say I do a little detox tour might feel really nice and might be really healthy, but it doesn't help, doesn't help you in any way to escape the computerization process in a society. So, of course, the solution to this individuals and organizations using computerization and software to organize lives and processes, the solution to escape this cannot be going back to the caves, but it cannot be back to the caves, but what could be the solution? So, how do we deal with all those power asymmetries that are now technologicalized, you could say, or informationalized? And this, I would say, this is the question that data protection tries to answer. What do we do with all this power and all those asymmetries that cannot be resolved in principle because organizations are always more powerful than the individual? Okay, now we've been talking about the data, interesting thing is that the data in data protection means information as a model for a certain purpose. This means that when we talk about raw data that's already an oxymoron, there is no raw data because all data is made for a certain purpose and it has all the models like included in itself and for a certain purpose and now you can ask whose purpose is it? And now we see if organizations write software and collect data, it is of course their interest being represented in how the data model itself is already created and this is even before the first actual data is being collected. The model itself represents the purpose of the organization and of course the purpose is very reduced because I have to, if I want to do computation, I have to reduce the complexity of the world into a model and it's subjective. It is, it is what I want to achieve with my system, how I built the system. Okay, yeah, we could go into semiotics but I think because of time we skip this a little bit. Okay, so maybe to sum this part up a little bit, technology especially IT helps organizations and individuals to better assert their own interests and IT creates information power affecting the fundamental rights of individuals because of the big asymmetries between the different players. If I program a piece of software that's of course not the same thing when Facebook writes certain software because the amount of users, the amount of funds I have all in it shows that there's a big structural difference and of course we don't want to go into caves but we want to have all the good things that come with the digitization. The processing is desirable but we have to pay attention to the power asymmetries and yeah okay, we come to this point later. Okay, so the data protection problem can be rephrased as information processes must not bring about socially and societally harmful consequences. So what we want is the good things and the implications without getting the bad things. So of course the question is what is the good thing and one of the bad things to prevent. And the researcher Martin Rost also said data protection also means maintaining alternatives of the weaker party and of course the weaker party is if I look at the relationship between me and for example the German state when I apply for something, of course the alternatives, how does a system have to be designed so my alternatives later on are not reduced. How are the platforms designed so when I get in there my alternatives are being reduced. We know this as lock in effect for example. And this is somehow interesting because it's analogous to the sustainable development idea that the later generations should have the same opportunities for accessing resources and having certain lifestyle or certain outlook on life. This is somehow the technological equivalent and as a consequence what data protection says we have to condition data processing. We have to say those are rules, those are red lines, though this area is totally fine but here's you know this should not be done or if you do it you have to do it in a certain way. So what we want, we don't want natural development because natural development means the rule of the strongest. So we want all those computation but we have to think about the rules how that applies. And in a certain way so we say data protection of course does not protect data that's a misnomer but individuals and society as a whole. Society as a whole you could say functional differentiation, you could say certain group rights, I don't know, right to assemble or even that the knowledge creation or the creation of an opinion in societies that all this works this is far beyond the individual. But this is only partially reflected in law and now we see that there's a difference between the data protection as I just outlined it and data protection law because data protection law GDPR says it protects the fundamental rights and freedoms and it protects fairness which is much more that much more as we see in the discussion in the political discussion but it's much less what we actually want when we talk about data protection we heard this at the opening ceremony already we talk we say data protection should protect society and we're here this but this is currently not reflected in the law but I would already be happy if we would already impose and use the law we have which we still do not when we listen to those fairness discussions as the food would be and something new okay but of course but what are the what are the motives for less data protection well of course data protection needs additional resources for the people who do the data processing most of the time the organizations you need more people you need knowledge you need to conceptualize you need to think not only I want to you know connect those people I want to maybe bring those items there I don't I want to have you know smart mobility but you have to think the whole data processing how do I achieve it and there are actually solutions to a lot of problems we see out there but they have to be approached in a different way and not easily at the first sight and you implement this so this is nothing one can do afterwards when the system is already there so that's why the the the main idea or the main impetus of data protection has to be it's part of the core design principles from the beginning on especially because and that's what I mentioned before because of the modeling of the processing of the data and all this and of course data protection prevents the use of information or business models this can be a good thing or a bad thing again there's a discussion about this but of course I think we agree that certain data processing is needed for public or official tasks but of course the discussion is you know how should this look like and what are the implications how can we do this without being socially harmed harmful um and the interesting thing is that especially in IT we are a little bit behind with the regulation it seems to me because we get discussed about certain things we would never discuss in the areas of hygiene rules or safety regulations prohibition of child labor, workers rights, environmental standards etc environmental standards of course although all this can be improved but um to say yeah okay I will come to this in a bit hygiene rules where there are straight red lines what's impossible to do because we have a common understanding of harm okay yeah this is it okay maybe some data protection theory as a finishing um or yeah somehow finishing um if we look this is somehow now getting it a bit deeper into the um into the differentiation I wanted to make um if we look at information flow between certain actors for example an organization and an individual as we mentioned before okay the organization is a strong one and the individual is the weak one as we mentioned before if we have the direction of flow of information from the strong to the weak and we increase this that means we call this we call this transparency or freedom of information if we block this information flow from the strong actor to the weak one we call this arcane practice or the hidden practice if the direction of flow is from the weak to the strong if we increase this we call this datafication and if we block this we call this data protection so here this explains now um why for example in Germany we have a federal commissioner of information freedom and data protection where I usually would think well the first one is actually restricting information the other one is actually spreading information but it makes total sense when we look at it with the glasses of power asymmetry because the transparency weakens the strong and the data protection strengthens the weak and that's why it makes total sense to bring this together and to have this in our data protection concepts and of course we see if we have more like restrictive authoritarian regimes we have datafication of everything while at the same time the state or other other businesses don't say what they do we have arcane practice and datafication at the same time okay so to finish sooner or later no I will go into this some mentions to the smoke screens and non-solutions so now we saw data protection is about power asymmetries so we hear a lot about digital self defense you know encrypt your emails and you know update your your things I totally agree but we have to see the societal dimension of this if data protection the idea of data protection is to protect the weaker ones against organizations to say digital self-defense is somehow cynical to say you are the weaker one and it's your task to defend yourself you have to become an IT expert and while doing this you still can't change the inner organizational data processing so you can encrypt your emails but if you have to interact with the with financial institutions of course there's nothing to to encrypt so digital self-defense is interesting for people who know their stuff and who live maybe alone not not connected with the rest of society but it is not a societal solution to the data protection problem data ownership in an individual data sovereignty if I have property rights and inclusive rights about data then where's the we would create we look at it from a perspective of power asymmetries we create a much bigger problem than we can actually solve because now if we say data ownership I can own my data that means I can sell my data so I put out a TV and say well this TV's price is this and that and it's half price if we get all your data it's ownership so you can freely sell your data or you don't sell your data but now we can see in the societal background what would happen people who have a lot of money can use the data ownership to get the protection they want and people who are not so financially well off they will get exploited but wasn't exactly this problem what we wanted to solve with data ownership well it doesn't work exactly that's why it doesn't work consent fetish okay I'll get this and data trust okay we have maybe a bit more okay maybe some some some sentence to the consent fetish as I would like to call it as we saw this understanding I think which is very useful about data protection would be a societal white concept but if we focus on informational self-determination that people by themselves can decide this we get somehow in the same problem as with data ownership but informational self-determination sounds much more empowering and of course this is why a lot of especially the bigger business to say well actually the problem of informational self-determination is a problem of information asymmetry if the people would know more they could decide better but of course we all know and as studies have said if we would read all the data prep all the services we need we would use six weeks each year only reading this of course that's that cannot be a solution the problem is not information asymmetry but power asymmetry okay so the only reason the only solution to this would be somehow hard limits for data protection and the best case is not the best case but the thing that the idea data protection would aim for with the democratic legitimization legitimization same goes for algorithm ethics we talk about algorithm ethics we need ethical algorithms but of course the algorithms are not actors the organizations are actors they use the algorithms to further their interests so to say we have to look at the algorithms somehow leaves out that they're actually actors using this and we had we have mentioned this at the beginning who makes the systems who creates the data models who plans and puts the purpose it's not the algorithm the algorithm is a tool and of course the tool can be regulated but it's the tool is not part of an ethical discussion okay so I would say our ethics are fine just the implementation of law legs behind and the discussion what we do with new actors like big tech companies but this is of course the place here to do this okay so and algorithm ethics of course I think now that we look at all those things all those like the smoke screens I think it makes total sense for a corporation who does not want regulation to say oh we need data ownership to empower the people the individual self-determination this is the most important thing and we also have to be very ethical and with everything we do we will be very transparent of course I would also make all those four points because none of those four points actually help the purpose of data protection okay comparison data protection forces organizations to consider the interests of data subjects when designing their data processing it's against their interest that's interesting the rights of a data subject is an obligation to the data controller so every time when a company says oh that's so much paperwork this means I'm not willing to make the effort to impose the protection of the people affected and yeah and now I think at least how I understand it we see that individual privacy the idea of the I go back into my living room I don't want cameras in my home this is a consequence of data protection and not the starting point so if we have those power asymmetries taken care of then we see it's actually not this camera in the in the sleeping room because if it's my own camera then it's of course it's a problem it's no problem because you know there is no power asymmetry between me and myself but it's a problem you know if it's if it's echo or whatever it is there is a company and the power asymmetries are so strong so this individual privacy we hear a lot being talked about in this understanding of data protection would be a result yeah okay so I think I would finish with a very with an interesting citation from Martin Rost because usually in computer science when we talk about attackers and the defense and IT security we say Alice and Bob are communicating and then is Mallory is attacking and then they both encrypt and and they both you know they have to group together to fight off Mallory and the citation or the proverb was if we talk about data protection it's not Alice and Bob preventing or protecting against Mallory but the attacker of Alice and Bob in this case is actually Bob Bob is the attacker and that's why we have to look at Bob and not at hackers around but to those people who actually design the processing so it reaches exactly what we want as a society okay that's it maybe some literature hints you could take if you found this topic interesting and then I think we have time for some questions thank you thank you so much I'm now running around the room taking questions please raise your hand if you have any and wave all cleared very very clear I guess I have a question we often also see that data I think this is the point about Bob right so my data can actually also not only harm myself but actually harm you if it's in some way used to to to make generalization so that you kind of fall out of the group of of of normalcy or and so on and so forth would that also fit into it can you maybe elaborate a little bit more on how you see that I think it's this is an important point too I would first look at of course the data processing could harm the individual but of course harm other people I think maybe I would extend your question even to say it is impossible to have data processing that does not affect other people and the classic example of course is we have our email providers and we sign up for them and then we say yeah we've read the privacy agreement and then this is the reason because we have agreed but of course with this process we have agreed for everyone who's writing us an email as well so if we take the network society seriously it's we can say it's a good or a bad thing at the same time but the network society means we are connected all the time and that's why I would agree that this has to be taken into consideration and that's why we need those kind of let's say regulations or the red lines collectively and the system we have right now somehow to determine this is a political system with democratic legitimacy and I think that's why it's so important to also fight against lobbyism and all this because this is kind of the self-realization of a society what it wants because yeah I agree it's all instantiations of the same problem that no decision only affects yourself and yeah that's the example with the going back to the cave if we go back to the cave then maybe it's only the family that's affected but this is not the case anymore and it's also nice I mean it's also to be in a nice community this is a wonderful thing but that's why yeah so in a way I would agree to this question and refer to the approach I outlined thank you can I now take a question from the audience somebody oh yeah okay hi thank you for your presentation I have a question that is some cities or some public actors especially in France start some projects called self-data projects which mean that they implement platforms where you can basically see very easily what the public actors or what of your data were given to the public actors or what you gave during making demands or processes so would that enter your self-determination definition or would it be you think a good kind of solution to also take control back on what data public or private actors if it's implemented by private actors really has on you and that you can then decide very easily to implement your rights that is in the law to okay I don't want that you have this data anymore you can cancel it thank you yeah thanks for the question I think this is a this is a quite good example in principle I think it's a really good idea to have those kind of I think they're called cockpits or transparency and information yeah central points but it gets all the good and the bad things about the transparency the good things are I can see what's happening and I can see how the data is processed but the bad thing is how can I really exercise this right how much time do I have how often can I do it can everyone do it is it accessible and if I if I want to contradict what can I do like what is if if I say okay now I see something but I'm not happy about it does those platform also allow me to say actually I don't want this usage I want to break this connection and I want to you know object to this so if it's only if it's only an information platform then I would be very critical of it and I would think okay this is again to wash away the problem of the power asymmetry to it's only a problem of information if you would know everything then everything would fine it would be fine and yeah and that's why I would say my basic question back would then be so how much can you intervene and how how much do also data protection regulatory authorities can they mass check those settings or the the usage can they and maybe even in an automatic way can this transparency also be used in a systematic way to check overreaching activities so is it only pointed to the individual to check or is it also has it also API's or whatever that yeah that data protection authorities could could use this in a way so I think then I would differentiate this yeah also thanks for the talk for me I have the feeling that discussion around data protection are always filled with memes like data protection makes everything more hard for businesses and so on do you have examples from successful from our point of view discussion around the topic of data protection and what can we learn of them from your point of view yeah that's actually that's a pretty good point well I think the the problem and that's why I try to I decided to make this talk is that data protection usually is a scapegoat for saying something with the IT doesn't work according to what I want I you know I can't access this or that data yeah it's because of data protection or so I think the first step is to make this clearer all those concepts and well things that worked well I think it it does not really make sense to always stay in the abstract area I think if people say ah actually data protection was bad for this or good for this okay let's get examples for that what were like how much how much more effort do you have and what are the results and there are I don't know there are examples of public software uses where maybe the design was inclusive and then we have to get more into the the concrete examples to get away from the memes because otherwise it just stays a conversation and my my impression is that in a lot of situations where the data protection is said to be a blocking for for businesses or even for public use if we look deeper into it we see the problem is not data protection because data protection says well if you have a certain purpose and the purpose is according to our values then you can do it and so if there's a big problem then probably there's something wrong with your purpose and but but this has to be yeah so a concrete example let me think about it yeah that's there are some some bigger and smaller well let's say I think there have been some let's say digital strategy now okay that's a that's a complex example to explain why this is a good example okay then my answer I would reduce my answer to say we have to we have to look at the the concrete processing if if if someone says okay this is a big this is a big issue it's I know it's a very unsatisfying answer but yeah I think this is I would leave it at that as for now okay we have one minute left and one question left so thanks for the talk my question I kind of goes back to the Alison Bob's situation so Bob is the untrusted actor there so what is it is it a practical situation is it practical to for example Alice encrypts homomorphically their data before they give it to Bob so it's only meaningful to Alice but Bob can still do some meaningful operations without actually knowing or getting any meaningful is it practical or that's a very good and very detailed interesting question and if we take data protection seriously there is no clear answer to this very common question because the question would be from a data protection point of view in which situation is this being used how are the actors related with each other do they share the same interest what are the dangers if the the encryption does not work or what are the dangers of the results of this analysis because if the results of the analysis can still be discriminating against the person or another group of people then it would not it would not help to have this homomorphic encryption so that's why it has to be decided from case to case you can there are situations where it's a good idea to encrypt but there's also a good situation you know if I encrypt all the data from the pension funds you know that's bad for everyone because they cannot be read and you don't get your pension so that's what I'm that's why I'm saying it you can't say let's encrypt and that's why it's good and maybe one one last comment to the question I just it just came to my mind the way how the Linux distribution Debian reaches their technical design goals is I think a very good way of of doing this looking at how data protection can be taken seriously how there's a democratic process how there's a discussion how there's a technical deep analysis of what should be done and that would what would happen there and then how the technology in the end looks like is a result of this whole inclusive process there are many problems with this example but I didn't want to leave you you know with totally no example at all and it's a partly technological example only so that's why I think it's a good example okay thank you so much and also thank you the audience and see you around in another session


National Broadcasting Company and its affiliated stations present the Pacific story. In the mounting fury of world conflicts, events in the Pacific are taking on ever greater importance. Here is the story of the Pacific and the millions of people who live around this greatest feat. The drama of the people whose destiny has taken the Pacific war. Here as another public service is the tale of the war in the Pacific and its meaning to us and to the generations to come. Manchuria, the Japanese Roar. It was the night in November, 1931. I was walking along the riverfront in Tianxin thinking. Two months before that, the Japanese had invaded Manchuria. I had been in Mukden the night of the so-called incident, and then on a hunch, I'd come down to Tianxin. Out of the dark, I saw a small group of men hurrying toward a powerful launch. A Chinese came running, far behind them, shouting. Stop them! Stop them! They are kidnappers! Hey you! Hey! Hey, what are you doing? Stop them! Stop them! I shot it almost automatically. Help me! Help me! Stop them! They are kidnappers! Hey you! Stop them! Stop! We have to stop them! Now they're pulling away in that powerful big launch. They have kidnapped Puyi. The Manchu boy-amper? Yes, Henry Puyi. They came to the mansion. Well, who are they? Doihara, Colonel Doihara. Oh, Japanese. They knocked me down. I am a retainer in the household. Colonel Kenzo Doihara. Do you have any idea where they took Puyi? No. They came right into the mansion, and they went directly to Puyi's quarters. And when I tried to stop them... I had come to Tianxin on a hunch, and I'd seen General Hanjo take over the government offices in Mukden. The Chinese railways, the telegraphs, the radio and the telephone. And just about everything else. Even the salt administration. I'd seen him crack down on the Chinese who would not collaborate with him and use those who would. It was evident that the Japanese had come to stay. That they would set up some kind of a government with some kind of a figurehead. And I figured their best bet would be Henry Puyi, the last of the Manchu emperors. Who as a boy had abdicated about twenty years before at the time of the Chinese Revolution. So I went down to Tianxin to get the jump on the story. And now that Puyi had been captured by Colonel Doihara, who was later to be called the Lawrence of China, I tried to figure out the next move. I finally went back up north to Mukden. What's the matter, Walton? Did Doihara slip on over on you down in Tianxin? Yes, I guess he did. Have you seen anything of Doihara or Puyi here in Mukden? The rumor is they've been seen down in Dairon. Dairon, huh? Yes. You're not going down there now, are you, Walton? I don't know. I see they're beginning to fly the flags of the old Manchu dynasty here. Yes, and some of the old Manchu nobility have been in conference with the Japanese. Yes, that's so. Yeah. Maybe you ought to stick around, Walton. Things were happening in Mukden. The Japanese were busy with a few inhabitants who for personal aggrandizement had decided to collaborate. Rumors leaked out that a new and independent nation would be established in Manchuria, and that it would be called Manjoko, which means Manchu country. Then one day we learned that Colonel Doihara had brought Henry Puyi to Manchuria. And then on March 9th, 1932, it seemed King, the renamed city of Changchun, which had been chosen as the capital, Henry Puyi presented himself for an important ceremony. It certainly looks fancy in that morning coat and those white gloves standing up there on that dyes. He doesn't look happy, though, standing there between General Hamzho and Count Chita. They're there to prompt him in case he forgets what to say. Puyi will know what to say. He can see all those Japanese bayonets around him. Order of the self-government dining board. Oh, one of the officials is speaking. The official declaration of independence. Manchuria and Mongolia have been in the past a separate state, not proper. The necessity of the present situation, we are in a position for national independence. With the will of the 30 million people, I hereby declare... ... that they're independent. Yes, Dean, at least a gesture. Is that all they're going to do? Isn't Puyi even going to take a note? I guess not. General Hamzho and Count Chita are shaking hands with him. Well, that's short and sweet. He's now chief executive. Yeah. Hey, look, they're escorting him away. Probably taking him back to the seclusion of his garden. Yeah, probably. I've got an idea, Walton, that that's as close as Puyi is ever going to come to running, my joker. Puyi being led away to his garden, a puppet to the Japanese. I thought of how far the great Manchu house of Nurhatsu had fallen. Once his ancestors, powerful and regal and terrible, had issued orders that all men obeyed with trembling fear. Nurhatsu, the Mongol-Napoleon, had declared the independence of Manchuria an inner and outer Mongolia from China. And, though he died before he finished his work, he laid the foundation for the invasion of all China. His people, a hundred thousand frightful warriors, took the Ming capital at Peking and proclaimed Manchu rule over all the Chinese empire. The Manchus ruled China for 268 years until 1912, until the time of the boy emperor Puyi. And when he abdicated, the Manchu dynasty collapsed. And now, he sits on a make-believe throne of the puppet state of Manchukuo. But the real rulers are the heads of the Japanese army and the railways of Manchuria. For many years before they invaded Manchuria in 1931, they had been penetrating it. Manchuria has everything we need. Japanese experts made surveys and reported back to the superior. Manchuria is larger than France and Italy come together. They were interested in space. Manchuria is a granary. They were interested in food. Manchuria is rich in minerals. They were interested in resources. Most of Manchuria is prairie land. It is fertile. Wheat and soya beans and qualiang grow there in great abundance. There is some mountains, but most of the land is wide valleys and rolling plains. In summer, the weather is as hot as in Egypt. In winter, it is 50 below. The winter winds sweep over the prairies and freeze everything before it. There are forests of pine and oak and elm and walnut. And in the earth are millions of tons of coal and iron. The Japanese had their eyes on Manchuria for years. After the Russo-Japanese War, they took over the Lao Deng Peninsula of Manchuria along with the southern Manchuria railway that ran from Port Arthur and Dyeran to Changchun. And also the coal mines worked by the railroad. At last, Japan had a foothold in Manchuria and she made the most of it. But this will give Japan control over our railways. Is it not a fact that China agreed in a secret protocol to the Treaty of 1905 not to build railways in Manchuria in competition with the Japanese railways? Yes, but that protocol was forced from us. And is it not a fact that in 1907 and again in 1909 China agreed to borrow from Japan to build the railways which we permitted you to build in Manchuria? We have agreed to all that. You remember that we permitted you to build the railroads on the conditions that you borrow the money from us and that we have supervision. Limited supervision, of course, over the line. That is what China is protesting. Japan is working the mines at Fushan and Yantai. And we are paying China attacks on the coal we mine, are we not? But all this means that Japan controls the railways, the mines of Manchuria and that we have... Japan expects China to abide by its agreements. Good day. The Chinese still nominally held Manchuria, but the Japanese were penetrating to its heart. Japan had staked out Manchuria as its sphere of influence and was alert to incursions of every kind. Other than that, she advanced her own interests in Manchuria. As of this date, Japan will supply foreign advisers on the Japanese subjects. We will hereafter have the right to prospect for minerals and the open mines in nine districts of Manchuria. One of these districts was the famous Anshan deposit, estimated to have 400 million tons of iron ore. They put in the first two blast furnaces just after World War I. I went up to have a look at it in the early 20s. The capacity of these blast furnaces is 300 tons of big iron a day. That isn't enough, Walton. How much is that in a year? About 200,000 tons a year. The original idea was to turn out 800,000 tons of steel a year. I understood that with the fushion mine only 75 miles away to supply the coal, that this was an almost ideal setup. Normally it should have been, but the depression hit it pretty hard. Instead of putting in eight blast furnaces, they've got just these two. And then they put up a cowl over there for 10,000 people, and that costs a lot more money. Well, as an expert in this sort of thing, would you say that this Anshan development is a success? Not by American standards. We can turn out big iron for around $25 a ton in the United States. It costs them here $35 a ton. Yes, but it looks as though they're going to continue with it. Oh, they'll do that. They regard it as a necessity. A heavy industry both for defense and to develop manufacturing. You can be sure that they'll go on expanding it too. From Anshan I went over to Fushion, the mine that supplies the coal for the Anshan iron works and the South Manchurian railway and the other industries of Manchuria. This is the biggest open coal mine in the world, Mr. Walton. Yes, it looks like an enormous saucer. Oh, yes. You see, the trains wind down around the sides, down into the bottom of the mine. We take out between a couple million and eight million tons of coal a year. Yeah, great development you have here. It amounted to very little before we took it over. The Russians operated the mine before the Russo-Japanese war and their output was only about 130,000 tons a year. And you're taking out between seven and eight million tons, huh? Oh, yes. We do it with a modern method. Yeah, that's a lot of coal. There is a great deal here. How much would you estimate? Oh, possibly something under one billion tons. Enough so it would take us a thousand years to take it all. By 1931, at the end of the Mukden Incident, there were 600 factories and mills in northern Manchuria. Many of them built and operated by the Japanese. This was before the Japanese invaded Manchuria. Of the 600 factories and mills, 150 were engaged in processing soybeans. The soybeans of Manchuria are more valuable than all its minerals and forests, Mr. Walton. I'm beginning to realize that. They tell me that soybeans are more than half of the Manchurian export trade. That is right. This year we have a crop of 225 million bushels. That's a tremendous yield. Our soil is the richest in the world. The Japanese are taking our soybeans to help feed Japan. It's an important food for you Chinese, too, isn't it? Yes, it is. And not only food, it is used for many other things, too. You're reducing it to bean oil here, aren't you? Yes, but it is also used to make buttons and radio panels and salad oil and sugar, Provena, vitamins, many things. That's probably one of the reasons Japan is so interested in Manchuria. It is a matter of food and commerce, of dollars and cents. Japan knows, for example, that last year's soybean crop was double the crop of 14 years ago. That would indicate that Manchuria is becoming more and more agricultural. But it is not. Since the Japanese came here, Manchuria has slowly changed from an agricultural state to an industrial state, we are becoming more. You could see Japan's development and exploitation on every hand. The Chinese had put in modern spinning mills. Then the Japanese came in and built bigger ones. The Japanese got their cotton from the United States and their wool from Australia. Yet they foresaw that someday they might be cut off from these sources. We have now introduced American cotton into Manchuria. Too cold in Manchuria? No. We have developed a cotton that grows well in our altitude. We have crossed sheep with excellent wool with our Mongolian sheep, which are hardy, but have poor hair. By this program of breeding, we are now growing Mongolian sheep with excellent wool. We are breeding these sheep by the millions. To observers everywhere, it was clear that someday the Japanese would extend their economic control of Manchuria to political control. Two years after Pugyi was set up as chief executive, he was enthroned as Emperor Kang Tae of Manchukwon. He then selected a Chinese cabinet with a Japanese advisor behind each cabinet member. When the Japanese had done in Korea and Promota, they did in Manchuria. It is no use, Wang. You did not get the job. They say there are no jobs on the railroad. They told me the same thing about the government. Yet there are 600 Japanese in the Manchukwon government. And they say it is a government of the people of Manchuria. They regard all of us Chinese as coolies. Wouldn't they even give you a job as a clerk? No. There is not one Chinese official on the railroad, not one Chinese engineer. And there are only a handful of Chinese who are clerks. Yes, it is unfair. Even in the repair shops, the Japanese workers get more than four times as much pay as the Chinese workers. For the same work? They are making slaves of us. We must leave or we must die here. The Japanese brought in Chinese immigrants for laborers. Paid some of them as little as one-twentieth the amount they paid the Japanese for the same work. These workers were never able to leave because they were always in debt to the Japanese. Under these conditions, gradually the Chinese rose. Armed outlaws, bandits began to appear. We have received intelligence of Mongol volunteers being active in this vicinity. Mongol volunteers? Yes. They have possibly learned of our investigation party. They are seeking to intimidate us. Our information is that there are several hundred in the Bandit Party. We are armed. But they outnumber us, sir. Lieutenant, we are the attachment of the Japanese army. The Mongol bandits may strike lone Japanese civilians, but they dare not attack us of the army. If I may be permitted an observation, sir, perhaps the major will remember that last June, 300 bandits under Tsionkai attacked one of our army punitive units and killed 17 of our men. I remember. That happened in broad daylight. Inform all members of our investigation party except the civilian officials. The presence of bandits will only scare them. Yes, sir. The Japanese soldiers and three Japanese civilian officials attacked to the garrison forces were killed when their investigation party was attacked by 300 Mongol volunteers yesterday, southwest of Tongwan. The people of Manchuria were never won the loyalty by the Japanese. The Japanese expanded their control, built better roads, better factories, better railways, put in better agricultural methods, but the great mass of Chinese still stood apart. After all, Manchuria is overwhelmingly Chinese. Our people, our language, our culture, all are Chinese. We have not been a real part of China for a long time, but we are different in every way from the Japanese. We know that all we do is for Japan. Day by day, our lot becomes worse. We become poorer and poorer. In Manchuria, the Japanese prepared for their blow against China proper. It came, you remember, in July 1937 with the attack at the Marcapolo Bridge outside of Beiping. After that, the Japanese knuckled down to make Manchuria the foundation for her dream of world conquest. Two weeks after the Marcapolo Bridge incident, the Japanese Manchurian Economic Joint Council was formed to mobilize all of Manchuria's resources for Japan. The following is our production goal for our first five-year plan. By the end of 1941, we will have produced 12 million tons of iron ore, 4,850,000 tons of iron, 2 million tons of raw steel, 2,500,000 tons of piece steel. But what Japan had to have in Manchuria was manpower. This was the key. And although Manchuria has a population of 30 million, manpower is scarce. It is scarce first because the Chinese avoid working for the Japanese as much as they can. And second, because of the low per-man production of the workers. I went out to Anshan again. Well, production here has been stepped up, yes. But still, it's not what the Japanese plan now. What is your goal for pig iron here at Tenzu-Hoo? The goal is 2 million tons a year, but we're never going to make it. Shorted your help? Principally, yes. 60% of our workers stay less than six months. Do you have that trouble only here? No, they're having labor troubles in the coal mines, too. They're opening new coal and iron deposits, but they can't get the workers. Is that true in the other industries being developed here in Manchuria? Factories, power stations, and in the arms and machine plants? It's true everywhere. But I've got an idea that's going to change, and soon. That National Mobilization Act they're talking about? Yes. Japan is putting the heat on the public government to control all menpower and resources. And you think they'll put it true? Yes. And putting all menchuria on a wartime basis. They're not only going to requisition communications and transportation and industries, they're also going to conscript the Manchurians as workers. When they do that, the workers will have to stay on the job. Now what'll that mean to an American engineer like you? I'm not going to wait to find out. Going back to the... That was 1939. The people of Manchuria were well under the heel of the Japanese. All males over 19 were under compulsory service. The economy of Manchuria was linked with the economy of Japan. You will close the shut-offs on the windows while we are passing through this area. Okay. You will keep the shut-offs closed until I return to open them. Okay. You know why that job conductor did that? We're going through a military territory, I suppose. Yes. It's what they call the Manjoko National Defense Zone. I've traveled this way many times. And they seem to be guarding it very well. Actually, they've converted Manchuria into an arsenal for Japan. And they are arming it to guard the northern frontier of what they call Greater East Asia. And guarding it against Russia? Against anyone, including the United States. They're developing Manchuria into a supply base, a military base, if you like. And arming it until it's impregnable. How do you think they're going to make out on their first five-year plan out here? Well, they probably won't quite make it, but they'll have come close to it. That will mean a tremendous increase in heavy industry. When they finish the first five-year plan, they'll probably start a second one. And that will be the time to look out. The first five-year plan closed at the end of 1941. Just at the time the Japanese struck at Pearl Harbor. They immediately launched a second five-year plan in Manchuria and geared it to the war against the United Nations. First, they'd learned the how of big-scale production. And in the second, they put their experience to work. They made rapid progress to meet the war emergency. More and bigger blast furnaces are being built to turn out steel for the war machine. Very hydroelectric plant is being constructed to supply power for Manchuria's war industry. The largest arsenal in Greater East Asia has been completed in Manchuria to supply Japan's mighty war machine. Hard-scale production to meet Japan's war needs is now on the way and the speed is rapidly increasing. All Manchuria sprang into life. New factories went up. An airplane factory, an automobile company, another ironworks. And all these meant that Japan was girding for a stubborn and terrible war on the mainland of Asia. In the control of food, the Japanese have reached into every part of Manchuria. They have clamped an iron hand on the farmers. You are aware, Chen, that the test of military provisions is a serious charge. But I stole nothing. The crops of Manchukuo belong to Japan. You held back some of your soil beans for your own use? My wife and children, there was not enough. We have furnished you with seeds to grow Kalyang. But only half as much this year has left. We had to little to eat. We had to eat the husks of the Kalyang. You look well enough. We are hungry. The army has taken our pigs and goats and our chickens and ducks. And when we could not give money for troops' company, they took our clothes and quilts and blankets.  No, my children... Here's guilty. Take him away. The food that is taken from the Chinese is commandeered for the Japanese. Across the great plains of Manchuria, it is taken by train down to the seaports on the Yellow Sea. Britain and the United States can never starve out Japan. This cargo of soil beans is going to Japan. With the food of Manchukuo, we can feed our entire population without import. Korea and Formosa furnish us rice, in addition to the rice we grow in Japan. The waters of the Pacific supply us with fish. Manchukuo supplies us with grain. And Formosa sends us sugar and fruits. These foods are ample for us. It was not so many years ago, 1927, that Premier Tanaka of Japan said, In order to conquer China, we must first conquer Manchuria and Mongolia. In order to conquer the world, we must first conquer China. For 40 years now, the Japanese have been penetrating into Manchuria. And since 1932, they've been converting it into a stronghold of their inner empire. Since the outbreak of World War II, they have learned many lessons. They've learned how to develop their resources. We have now modernized the oil enterprises of Manchukuo. In these fields here at Kushon, there is a deposit of 6 billion, 700 million tons of oil. And that is not all the petroleum in Manchuria. We don't know how much more there is, but we know that they have modernized their methods. Hundreds of thousands of tons are being taken out every year to carry on the war. And we know, like the British, they've learned to decentralize their industries. They have dispersed their production centers throughout Manchuria and the islands of Japan. From these plants flows a stream of war supplies. This plane is carrying guns, tanks, munitions to the front of the channel. This train is carrying naval supplies, food, medicine and ammunition to a Chinese port for shipment to the South Pacific. This plane is carrying oil to put up for use of our warships and aircraft carriers. Well, Mr. Walton, the industries of Manchuria can be bombed out the same as the industries of Germany. Manchuria is fairly well protected from bombing by the deep penetration of the Japanese and North China just now. Yes, but eventually the United Nations will drive into China and will operate from bases there. That's what Japan is expecting. She's been anticipating this for years. Some experts believe that the Japanese may even withdraw from Japan to the Asiatic mainland and make their stand there. What do you think, Mr. Walton? Well, if the Japanese can hold their coal, iron and oil deposits and their food supply in Manchuria, they'll be a hard nut to crack. Or we must remember, Japan considers Manchuria the first essential in her plan to rule the world, and she'll fight for it to the last. You have been listening to the Pacific story presented by the National Broadcasting Company and its affiliated independent stations as a public service to clarify events in the Pacific and to make understandable the crosscurrents of life in the Pacific Basin. For a reprint of this Pacific story program, send 10 cents in stamps or coins to University of California Press, Berkeley, California. We repeat, for a reprint of this Pacific story program, send 10 cents in stamps or coins to University of California Press, Berkeley, California. This is written and directed by Arnold Marquess. The original musical score was composed and conducted by Thomas Paluso. Your narrator, Gain Whitman. This program came to you from Hollywood. This is the National Broadcasting Company.


So if you were if you were gonna do a play. No, what? Why would it be the sound of music? It wouldn't be I know it would you'd want to play the captain and the sound of music That's your dream role. No, yep.  No Well, he technically was so there you go. Not enough of one. Oh Hey welcome back to our stupider axis corn I'm Rick you've also Instagram Twitter for juicy content Thank you to everybody has his ports on patreon folks to the count and scrubbing like button Which soundtrack do you prefer camel out the motion picture or camel out the Broadway show Broadway show? Really? Yeah. Okay. Good. That's all right. That's the right choice. I love that one. Yeah today Welcome back to this channel You're welcomed We got a trailer that came out of 12 days ago, I guess sorry about that. It's good to Mali Adam film with Tavino Thomas called 2018 and It's a about The flooding I think right To to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to it's about it's a base of true story I think about flooding So let's find out. Okay Let's Let's here we go nice trailer that's today um boy the scope of that looks massive doesn't it as far as budgetary concerns yeah production design cinematography that just looks like it's a giant a giant film I bet it's gonna be a little more intimate absolutely because it's Malayalam it's Malayalam so but it I mean it if you're talking about a catastrophe you're gonna tell it and need to have some major usage of real-water CGI yeah and if whatever CGI was used looks pretty dang good yeah right now a thriller set in the backdrop of 2018 carola floods it unfolds the lives of people from all walks of life who faced catastrophic consequences in the collective efforts put in by the brave people to survive the calamity great I remember I've seen some DMs from stupid babies who've sent me stuff in fact one of them might have been the trailer and I just if you I've said this before if you send me a link to something or a real or anything the visual I'm I'm not gonna look at it because more than likely it could end up on the channel yeah so I remember there's quite a few people who yeah and it looks like it just came out today so if you've seen it please let's know how it is my suspicion is we will not get it won't get it at all here being a Malayalam film which is the we don't get it sadly 2018 let's see here and it doesn't happen enough we've said it before it would be really wonderful there are reviewers in all of the world it happens here in the States who no we don't have it production companies will send a screener to the reviewers who get to screen the thing and review it usually before it's released or at the time of its release we would love to be able to do that especially when it's a film that is gonna be a wonderful film deserves the support coming from an industry that has a very very good track record of creativity so I this is this is one I really wish we could see yeah me too we don't I just checked even down in little India where we'll get more stuff we just we hardly ever get Malayalam stuff so it's usually has to be a pretty big Malayalam film really big yeah it's just something that a big of bigger scale we're talking of all the films how many do you think a year get released here that we could actually go physically see of Malayalam you five yeah the only thing it's seriously I'm not exact maybe five maybe five which is real sad it's yeah it really is it's really and I get it distribution has to justify the fact that people are are they even gonna turn out to see the film I'm sure for like films like Bengali we don't get anything exactly like you know as a means we definitely probably don't get anything and Punjabi and but films it's Hindi to lugu are the two big ones and then Tamil in Canada I think there's more telugu people here than than any other and typically just big blockbuster types of films because they'll draw more yeah footfalls and they have more money for distribution yeah so if anybody's involved with this on a production side they could get us a screener we would love to screen it be able to watch it if you've seen it let us know how you how you liked it if not what should be the next Malayalam film that we could watch let us know down below


I must thank Mr. Akulei Adeojo, my director of Toyota Nigeria Limited and the board and management of the company for the very kind invitation to join you today for the commissioning of this state of the art Toyota Certified Service Centre. There are several Toyota service centres across the country but this facility is probably the first of its kind in Nigeria and certainly in West Africa. And I must confess to being quite fascinated by the multiple resources and outcomes that this facility possesses and is designed to achieve. It is clearly not merely a service centre for providing quality after-sale service, although we are told that that is one of the objectives for establishing it. But it's actually developed as we've heard as a teaching research and resource centre to provide dealers with world-class practical hands-on training. It is what is called a dojo centre and I had to research that to find what exactly a dojo centre is. We're told that is a big simulation and immersive learning facility. The word dojo in Japanese means a place of the way and this in general parlance is a place actually for martial arts training but in the manufacturing context a dojo centre serves as a workshop for immersive learning, skilling, reskilling and right skilling of workers. So here real-life situation, research and experiments will be undertaken and the results we're told will be applied to the resolution of customer and dealer issues. But perhaps as important is the value of the facility for the gathering of first-hand market intelligence on customer experience and expectations. And this is in line as the managing director has pointed out with the global philosophy of Toyota, the essence of which is the importance of obtaining first-hand knowledge by going to the source of the knowledge itself to experience things first-hand. As we've also heard, the facility has been built to standards comparable to the most sophisticated around the world with the latest, best-in-class equipment and technology designed to deliver superior world-class services to vehicle owners in Nigeria. So I think Toyota Nigeria Limited deserves commendation for its focus on capacity development in the automotive industry. One of the chief problems in our industrialization effort is the skills gap, especially middle-kid technical and engineering skills. So an intentional and aggressive public and private sector synergy in developing this type of capacity is crucial. Our work, that is the work of the federal government with the private sector at the Nigeria Industrial Policy and Competitiveness Advisory Council has underscored and honed this particular approach. Also recently, the president launched the Investing in Digital and Creative Enterprises program, iDice, which is an over $600 million AFDB-supported program that will provide assistance to young technology and creative sector entrepreneurs through the provision of finance, skills development, and infrastructure. This year also, the Nigeria Jubilee Fellows program will begin. And this means that every year under the program, 20,000 graduates after their youth service will be given fully paid internships that will last for 12 months in reputable private and public sector organizations across the country, such as Toyota and Nigeria Limited. But it will be fully paid for by the federal government. The idea, of course, is that this will be one program where participants can gain relevant career and life skills that will enable them transition seamlessly into the professional, business, or public sector along the way. The program will last for five years. And as I've said, it's funded by the federal government and the UNDP as well as the EU. I think it's important to restate that the federal government has committed itself to partnering with the private sector, recognizing that the private sector is better equipped and resourced to lead the development of the economy. And this position is at the heart of a new medium term national development plan 2021 to 2025, which as you know was launched two months ago. The plan envisages an investment commitment in the order of 348 trillion Naira. And the private sector is expected to invest 298 trillion Naira, which is about 86% of the projected investments. So clearly this means that government must create the most conducive environment for private enterprises in Nigeria. And I'm sure you've heard this over and over again, but I must say that it is now absolutely existential for our economy to provide the best circumstances for our private sector to thrive. And the president has by several directives, approvals, and executive orders set in motion, and in many cases with the collaboration of the private sector, the most aggressive drive yet for appropriate infrastructure, power, roads, rail, and broadband connectivity, yet in the history of our country. This includes ensuring that our ports work smoothly for trade purposes, building new port complexes, redregging of existing but disused ports, and ensuring that government regulators facilitate rather than hinder business operations. As you know, this sort of work cannot be done overnight, no question at all, because of where we're coming from. So we consider this an imperative, and we think that it is something that requires not just government effort, but also the support of the private sector in achieving. And for us, the imperative of doing this is why we have now, using a lot of private stakeholder participation, launched the seventh iteration of the Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council, Pebe, our 60-day national action plan, which we call NAP 7.0. This commenced on the 7th of February and it will go on until the 7th of April. The whole idea of NAP 7.0 is to deepen the reforms that we've tried to deliver over the past five years, with a focus on exports, process automation, improvement in regulatory practices, judicial reforms, and also compliance with Executive Order 001, as well as collaboration with the states, with the sub-nationals all across our country. In particular, we are collaborating at the moment with Lagos State and Carnot States. And this is to ensure that services which states have to render in the process of facilitating business and commerce are rendered as smoothly as possible. Such services as land services, provision of land, and provision of local approvals for building, etc. We have highlighted key items in all of the focus areas to ensure that they do not unravel and to ensure that we drive sustainability. Yes, we have reported considerable improvements in the six years since our ease of doing business reforms began. But at the same time, there remains a lot of work to be done. And we believe that the diligent implementation of these reforms will encourage the sort of game-changing investments such as this state-of-the-art service centre that we'll be commissioning today. As I conclude, let me say how very proud we are of the achievements of Toyota Nigeria in the past decades. Toyota, as we've heard repeatedly today, is by far Nigeria's favourite car. But it came to be so because of the foresight, commitment to high values, and the focused investments of Chief Michael Adeojo, OOM, the founder and visioner of this automotive enterprise starting over 50 years ago with the establishment of Elizadeh Motors. And I'm told Elizadeh Motors is the majority investor in Toyota Nigeria, limited. Chief Adeojo has demonstrated and I've said this once before that it is possible to be honest and principled and still be an outstanding local and international business success. All that alongside his outstanding commitment to philanthropy and the provision of high quality, high education over the years. Congratulations, sir. We pray that you will live much longer, not just to see the continued success of your children and your businesses, but also to see the Nigeria of your dreams. I will in a few minutes have the privilege of formally commissioning this Toyota Certified Service Centre. I thank you all for your kind attention. God bless the Federal Republic of Nigeria.


and even over 7000 so one way to interpret these test results is that these column stores are able to crunch through the decision support ad hoc queries twice as fast twice as much as Postgres so a lot of room to game seems like there's a lot of room to game to add or a large gap that could be closed by having a column store data type in Postgres this is just to illustrate the response times of each of the queries the Postgres results are the blue ones on the right but it is kind of interesting to note that to see where which queries Postgres or the column stores actually do much better than Postgres does some of them I mean even the column stores are not too consistent one of the column stores happens to run certain types of queries better than the other one but still across the board to be able to crunch through twice as many queries with a column store and you can't with Postgres and just to give a couple of examples of where the types of questions that these column stores seem to answer better than Postgres if you were looking to look at what your top 10 unshipped orders with the highest revenue or revenue to be realized listing the revenue volumes of your local suppliers and identifying customers that have been having problems and having problems being defined as which customers have been returning your product more than others anyone use the mainframe no any mainframe user anyone thought about it no maybe this will be interesting or is everyone anyone anti mainframes no okay that's good so took a look at some of the latest mainframe offering from IBM we ran some OLTP take a look at OLTP workload on how this thing does and we wanted to see how it did to a popular competitor if you don't mind me anonymizing that also although these tests were run against the 9.4 release at the time I think these numbers are still actually quite interesting to look at because they certainly wouldn't have gotten any worse so a couple basic hardware details the Z13 processor has a 5 GHz clock speed there are 8 cores per die 16 threads 64 gigs of RAM in this particular LPAR so we tried to match it up against something similar a 8 core processor that also had 16 threads 2.4 GHz clock speed again 64 gigabytes of RAM and this is what we found so running an in-memory OLTP workload the lines here are illustrating the performance of the processors with hyperthreading turned on or not so the very bottom one is our popular competitor with no hyperthreading next one up is the same system with hyperthreading turned on and then the top two lines are the mainframe results so what we see here is that with or without hyperthreading that the throughput of an OLTP workload seems to run twice as fast on a mainframe but then we want to see some writes go on and this particular test is using PG Bench oh I think I said sorry I said this was a TPCC earlier but this is a PG Bench workload PG Bench again with the right workload right only workload on the popular competitor the results with the hyperthreading turned on and off didn't seem to make much of a difference the lines are pretty much on top of each other on the bottom but on the mainframe there is a substantial difference of having the hyperthreading turned on even for a write only workload and once again the ability to do a heavy right workload on the mainframe we were able to push through twice the throughput now this one is a TPT2 the TPCC derivative what these lines are showing is as you scale up the size of the database that the throughput of the tests are staying pretty consistent this particular workload on the mainframe seems to maintain about a 1.7 times throughput I will not repeat that question but it's yes oh it's another type of system yeah hypothetically it's a different hardware vendor that may be going up against IBM that yes so we're running Postgres on the same way on two different types of hardware oh oh yes sorry so one fork of Postgres versus another fork of Postgres yeah sorry for being facetious it's the same Postgres well I won't say that because of this alright so yeah well didn't seem like anyone was interested in the mainframes in the room today but they are some interesting pieces of hardware the question is what the sticker price was on the Z13 I'm afraid that I never got to see a price sheet but I don't think any of those IBM sales folks will shy away from what they cost so next Postgres XL how many folks have looked at Postgres XL over the years anyone using it now hoping to be able to use it so hopefully some of these test results will keep you interested then so for those who aren't familiar Postgres XL is a fork of Postgres they a lot of the people involved or previously involved with Postgres XL and Stato either one Stato it is an all purpose fully acid open source scale out database solution it's been rebased against 9.5 recently so previously it was against the Postgres 9.2 branch to give you an idea that after a few releases there may be a lot more interesting things to be able to do with XL so just to quickly mention that I did a little comparison on AWS systems EC2 setting this up on some EC2 instances these individual instances had 32 am I reading this one is just core Postgres at the time the 9.5 alpha 2 was currently available and this single instance 32 virtual CPUs 244 gigabytes around 8 SSD drives in it then for the Postgres XL cluster we have something with similar resources so we have 8 nodes each of these nodes have I gotta do this math in my head so each of these nodes had 4 CPUs what is an 8th of 244 30 gigabytes so 4 CPUs in each of these nodes 30 bytes of memory I think these little ones had only 1 SSD attached to them so this is what we sell on low test again using the dbt3 a TPCH derivative to load 100 gigabytes of data build 34 indexes took about 2 hours on the with Postgres 9.5 on the single instance in the 8 node cluster splitting up those data files 8 waves only took 44 minutes to load all that data and build those 34 indexes cutting down that load time in half and while we haven't explored it the Postgres XL developers have reason to believe that if we spent more time in determining how many coordinator nodes that we had per data node we may be able to improve this load time even further and also to take extra care in sorting your data files so that the data that you're loading on the table all streams over to one node got my slides out of order here so this is where the individual node details now this slide illustrates how the response times how much the response have improved on each of the individual queries and the power test between 9.5 and scaling out on Excel almost across the board there's pretty significant improvement in the response time if we're looking at the score values scoring 2400 about 2400 with 9.5 and scoring about almost 6300 with Postgres XL almost 160% improvement and it's processing power so hopefully we'll see good things that come from Postgres XL and it won't be a fork forever how many folks have replication in there using replication streaming replication slowny londies more than one or do you got sorry yeah so we're going to take a look at Pgeological is an extension that is newly available that can be used with 9.4 and newer versions of Postgres Thomas Wander took a look at seeing how well each of these replication solutions worked with PG bench on a normally workload just to give you an idea of the system sizes they're a pair of two AWS instances with four SSD drives attached and 122 GB around so most of these tests are probably going to be ending up in memory just to illustrate or to show a little bit of tuning that's gone on that these weren't default parameters check point time up to 15 minutes set the effective IO concurrency to 32 1 GB of maintenance work memory setting the max wall size to 8 GB and configuring 16 GB of shared buffers and this is what we get so in this two node setup the two lines that are overlapping for the most part on the bottom are the throughput numbers from Laundice, Dan, Sloney at the top end which I guess in some ways would be considered I guess the peak of what you could expect out of a replication solution is streaming replication so that huge difference from having those trigger based replication solutions you guys using them find that to be a burden sometimes the performance of Sloney or Laundice so now the line in the middle is the performance of the throughput that you can get with Pgeological which is not using triggers the same way that Laundice and Sloney are building off of the streaming replication facilities inside Postgres the question is whether these numbers are coming from the master of the Slade system I actually don't know I guess I would have assumed the master but because you have to run it must be from the master based on you have to run PgBench against the master and these numbers are probably coming out of the PgBench so it's looking like streaming if streaming replication was the right solution for you you're getting 6 times the throughput compared to Laundice and Sloney Pgeological it's not quite that high but you're still getting 3-4 times the throughput and that's all I had for you today thank you for listening


In the future, soldiers and autonomous vehicles will use tricorder-like sensors to measure electromagnetic fields. That might be valuable information for navigation in a GPS-denied environment. That's the kind of capability we're interested in pursuing at the Army Research Laboratory. Hi, I'm Dr. Phil Percanti, the Director of the U.S. Army Combat Capabilities Development Commands, Army Research Laboratory. Welcome to ARL What We Learned Today, a podcast where we talk with Army scientists and engineers about the science and technology that will modernize the United States Army and make our soldiers stronger and safer. Today we're going to talk with Dr. Kevin Klater, a research physicist in a lab sensors and electron devices directorate at a Delphi Laboratory Center in Maryland. Kevin, welcome to the podcast. Thanks for having me, Dr. Percanti. So Kevin, how long have you been at the Army Research Lab? I've been here for four years now. Fresh out from my PhD. Fresh out from your PhDs? So what does that mean exactly? So it means that I did my PhD in electromagnetic resonance and now I'm working in electric and magnetic field sensing. So it's kind of a shift for me, but it's really exciting. And it's also interesting to be able to see my work being applied to the soldier in a more immediate sense than it was in academia. Where'd you go to school? So I did my undergraduate at Rice University and my graduate at Duke University. What did you study at Duke? Physics and there I was actually doing magnetic resonance imaging. Oh, talk a little bit about that. What does that mean? Sure. So in traditional magnetic resonance imaging, you're basically looking at the water in the body and it gives you a nice image of the person inside, but you can't actually pick up chemical contrast. So recently there have been improvements to imaging like chemicals like carbon. So now you can actually target cancer cells, but you can only look at it for about a minute. So my work was actually being able to look at chemical contrast for much longer, like 10 minutes. That's a big leap to go from looking at chemical contrast in magnetic resonance imaging to working for the United States Army. So how'd you go from MRI physics to physics that U.S. soldiers might care about? So one of the reasons that I like applied physics is that I can actually see where my work's going. One of the things that I really liked when I came to ARL was I was actually able to see how the physics that you're doing here is being transitioned into a product for your customer, the warfighter, and how they can use that to make their lives better or safer. So what are you working on here at ARL? So I'm working on a few different projects. One of the projects that I've been working on that we've been transitioning is called mobile power meter. It's a way of measuring power without having to actually expose yourself to the harm of high voltages. So this is kind of like a remote power meter. So we've seen power companies today driving down the street and they're measuring power as they drive down the street now. Do they have this technology already? So when they're doing the power down the street, they're usually just doing the magnetic fields and not the electric fields. They're not actually measuring the voltages. They're just measuring the currents. And they do have some technology, but it's invasive.  So this really allows any soldier, they don't have to be trained to measure power and become as smart as a utility. So why is it important to measure electric fields? So the electric fields are actually what's governed in the power system, right? So you have generators which generate your voltages and those voltages generate the electric fields.  It's because the voltage has dropped. So by measuring that voltage, we can kind of help determine things like the stability of the grid, whether you need to kick in additional battery backup power or things like that. I see. Do you think there are other areas, other opportunities where you might be able to take advantage of measuring electric fields? Oh, absolutely. So the power grid is basically bathing us all in this electromagnetic low frequency radiation. So if you think about it, we're kind of swimming through 60 hertz fields and we can use those for other applications. So while we were out and moving around taking some experiments at field sites, we're like, hey, you know, we're getting obviously stronger signals closer to the power lines. Maybe we could use this for moving around the power lines or for avoiding power lines. So actually before I started, we had a patent for avoiding power lines. And then when I started, one of the cool experiments that we did was we strapped a sensor to the top of the car and we drove it around town and we're looking at using that now for navigation. Oh, that's kind of cool. So you think you can use it for navigation? What's the difference between using electric fields for navigation and say using the GPS, the global positioning system that we're all familiar with today? Right. That's a great question. So the global positioning system works by having a bunch of satellites in orbit and they broadcast signals down to receivers on the ground. Those signals are very weak and they can be jammed. Now the power system basically is a ground based system that's generating a lot of 60 hertz and it's very difficult to avoid that 50 60 hertz signal. We've even actually seen it by satellites in space. So like I said, we're really wherever you are on earth, you're bathed by the signal. So by locking onto that signal instead, we think we have a good option for a denial resistant method of finding navigation. Yeah, so this could become really, really important for the Army in the future and for society in general if someone were to take down the GPS system or the GPS signal we're denied and people are trying to navigate. The fact of the matter is many of us, particularly the younger people, not me because I've been a scout master for many years. I still know how to use a map and compass. However, many people don't because we rely so much on our phones. So being in a GPS denied environment can be somewhat problematic and can be particularly problematic for the Army when you need to have a short position navigation and timing. So this is a way perhaps to use electric fields to do positioning without having to rely on a global positioning system. So where are you in this research? So like I said, exactly the idea is that you can use this for measuring where you are even in the absence of GPS signals. But there's still some outstanding problems with that, right? One of the things is that it needs good knowledge of where your source signals are. Similar to GPS, you need to know where the satellites are. Here and now you need to know where the power infrastructure are, where your power lines are. So being able to generate accurate maps of that and then run those through basically supercomputers to generate the field measurements that you'd expect to see is pretty challenging. Well, you're in an environment that you still understand where the power lines are. You still understand where the power generation plants are.  But oftentimes in war that infrastructure doesn't exist anymore. What do you think is your prognosis for the future of using a technology like this when you don't necessarily understand the infrastructure? So that's an interesting question, right? How do we update our maps when the maps changing? And that's something that I think is going to be kind of augmented by like AI in the future, for example. Artificial intelligence and machine learning. Right, exactly. So well, if you're doing this on your phone, your phone might not be able to run the full computer simulation for the continental United States. However, it can maybe run some local changes on that. So by having, for example, a faster AI informed field solver, we can actually update the maps kind of on the fly or make guesses as to how the maps should be updated. Okay, so I'm tracking you, Kevin. What I would like to understand a little more though is do you think this technology could work if soldiers were in a war environment where the power and the infrastructure was gone, the local infrastructure? Yeah, absolutely. So even though there may be no local infrastructure, 60 Hertz fields propagate for long distances and because they're very low frequency, they can even propagate through buildings. And so, like for example, power from a nearby city can still be used for navigation. We've even seen these fields in space. So what do you think about the timeline for being able to take electric fields and apply them to an assured precision navigation and timing problem? How many years away do you think we are? I think we're a few years away from seeing like a demonstration of this in like a local city area. When do you think a technology like this might show up in the hands of a soldier? Some of what we do at ARL is very future forward. So we're focused not just on the immediate impact but on impacts, you know, down 20 or 30 years out. This technology, I think, is probably more of the 15 year, 20 year technology. But we'll probably start seeing some demonstrations of that well before then. Yeah, so we're looking, you know, and that's kind of right in ARL sweet spot because ARL is as the U.S. Army's Corporate Research Laboratory. We're focused on the far term, the longer term technology with an aim of 2035 and beyond per se. Now the notion of that, of course, is that there are a lot of open questions that still need to be addressed. Most from a biomedic standpoint, many things in nature who navigate with fields use magnetic fields. But I want to ask you the question about this from a navigation point of view. Is there any inspiration that you've drawn from nature on how you might take advantage of fields to navigate? So I think the closest example would be the sharks where it's kind of an inverse problem. The sharks use the electric field to hunt down their prey instead. And actually we have some ideas for using that to, for example, avoid objects, right? Because the electric field distorts and bends around people. So while you can, you know, hide with camouflage, it's very difficult to camouflage yourself to the electric field. And so use that for, like, to keep quadcopters, for instance, from bumping into people in a crowded environment. Birds have, you know, their internal magnetic compass that they can use for navigation. But there is also, like, a spider, for example, that as it spins its silk, it electrically charges it. And then once it's got enough silk hanging out from back of it, it actually provides a lift to the spider and the spider can fly away on its own silk. And so these are kind of, you know, some of the things that we're looking forward to for applications as well is use not just the magnetic field for navigation, but the electric field for navigation as well. I think what's interesting about this is the magnetic field occurs naturally. And here we're really talking about using man-made fields, but in a similar way. So the notion that one can navigate using fields has been demonstrated in nature. The processors that these animals use, while they don't draw a lot of power, are fairly sophisticated compared to the technology that we have available. So I would assume that much of what you've said about artificial intelligence and machine learning is really why it's going to take us much longer to understand the problem and then to develop a technology that you could actually put in someone's hand. Because while it's almost trivial to sense the field, being able to understand that field, process it, put a neural network or some machine learning algorithm or some deep learning technique against it to make it useful is going to take quite a bit of research. So one of the reasons that we haven't seen this before is that while the physics is really well understood and we can model it and we know what's going on, one of the challenges with electric fields is that things actually interact with each other. So if you have one object, then you can know how that distorts the fields. But when you start putting in another object that distorts the fields that the first object sees, which then changes things, that's what's called a nonlinear process. Now as it turns out, computers aren't very good at doing that. Computers are very good at doing linear processes. But brains are really good at doing nonlinear processes. And so that's one of the reasons that we've seen this in animals is because the brain can do all of these nonlinear connections and the shark can hunt using electric fields very effectively. But AI and ML and like deep neural nets and this neuromorphic computing, those are starting to move computers towards a nonlinear process. So now we can throw those tools at it and start doing kind of nonlinear estimates of the fields and that's allowing us to do a lot of these new applications. That's very exciting. So I think that in the future you'll be able to make this connection between the physics of electric fields, the computer science associated with machine learning, deep learning, other kinds of nonlinear compute processes and to be able to bring this technology to our warfighters in a way that will help them navigate in areas where GPS is denied, the infrastructure perhaps does not exist. But we still need to get our soldiers connected together in a way that maximizes their effectiveness and allows them to maneuver around the battlefield in ways that will provide them with relative positions of advantage in the most efficient way. Let me ask you this question. What gets you excited, Kevin? What I really like about this is that this work is two things. It's doing physics in new and exciting ways. So I like, you know, breaking things. Somebody in my code is a modeling simulation expert. They give me their codes and I break it and come up with new things to do with it. The other thing is that it's, you know, applied. So the things that we're making go out and help the warfighter. We're like, removing the warfighter from harm or helping them know where they are and keep them from getting lost. And being able to see that impact actually is very rewarding. One thing I will always say is that we look to do disruptive research. That is, research that will either change the way people think about scientific paradigms or will change the way the Army uses technology to fight and win its battles. Well, Kevin, thanks for the conversation. I find your work really interesting and I know that in the long term this is going to pay off for the United States Army. So thank you for joining me today. And to all of you, thanks for joining us for ARL, what we learned today. In upcoming episodes, we'll continue the discussion about the underpinning research that will build the Army of the future. Please consider liking and subscribing. Science is a journey of discovery and we're glad you're along for the ride. For the Army Research Lab, I'm Dr. Phil Percom.