We are living in a world unimaginable just a few decades ago. The internet drastically changed our lives, making it faster, easier and more convenient to get things done. But many individuals, like myself, don't know who ends up only owing my personal data and what will happen to it. Can I trust the digital world that exists beyond my gadgets? Not completely. Then how should the trust be created and who will take the leadership in that process? We have today four distinguished guests. Let me introduce them to you. Madam Kirstie Carillite, President of Republic of Estonia. Professor Lee Sheldon, Director of Institute for Internet Governance, Tsinghua University. Mr. Adam Getty, Founder and CTO Ioniq Society. And Professor Urs Gasser, Executive Director of Bergmann Klein Center for Internet and Society, Harvard University. Thank you all very much for joining us today. First of all, the trust issue. The world has seen so many incidents of data breaches where personal data of millions or sometimes billions have been hacked, stolen, compromised. How have these cases impacted governments, industries and individuals in each country? I would like to ask President Carillite first. Yes, thank you. Estonia, for those who do not know, is a society where for one generation already starting from the beginning of this century, people have digital passports, digital identity. So in Estonia, we are not anonymous in the Internet and we do not have to rely on identifiers coming from private sector, which quality we do not know. And we have learned one thing, that technology does not build trust. Trust is being built by legal space in which you do operate. Because if the state provides people with the identification means in the Internet, anonymity is gone from that part of the Internet. Because if two people sign in into our system, they have an encrypted conversation channel with somebody they know. And state guarantees that the person they think they are talking to is really the person because digital passport works like the real one. You go to notary office to show your passport and you do believe that this is a true thing. Exactly the same guarantees are offered in Estonia to people. And therefore we know that whatever technologies you use to avoid hacks and leaks, etc., we do use all of those. For example, there is no one big Estonian public database. We have dispersed databases, etc. So we do use the technology to make sure that we are technically safe. But this is not enough to build trust. You have to tell people that you have a legal space where it is a crime to snoop in Estonia. This is a crime. So if somebody should get into our government guarded, which is guarded by the same digital signature Internet space and snoop. First of all, if it's somebody of ours, they could only get in with their identity. That is a trace you would know who looked. And then you can complain. And if they didn't have anything to do, it's criminal prosecution for them. You see, this is what builds trust. It's not enough only to say to people, this is your data and I take good care of it. You have to constantly, every day, millions of times demonstrate it. And this way society learns that actually technology can help with this kind of trust building. Because if I give you a very simple example, all you have medical records somewhere. And they are in your doctor's office or in a safe or somewhere. You don't know exactly where. And you don't know who really lived through this file last time. If you're honest to yourself, you don't know. But I do know because my data is in a e-health system. And if a nurse, a doctor goes in, there is a trace I can verify. And if I think this particular nurse has nothing to do with me, I can complain. And they have to tell me why. So it's not fine to go into the database even if you have access rights to check what was the paycheck of your ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend. It's simply not done. It's criminal prosecution for you. And I know if somebody has been checking. So you see, digital actually can provide better security and safety than analogue. It's not absolute. I do agree. Nothing's ever absolute. But it may be better than the analogue world. And it only can be guaranteed with the legal space setting. So it's a societal issue. It's not the technological issue. It never will be. Welcome back to Estonian Geass. It's very, very interesting. Mr. Getty, how about an industry, especially in America, how has been these, you know, these incidents impacted on them? Madam President just described that trust is a societal issue. And technology can help evolve what it means to society today. But it is a societal issue. And in the United States, we've had quite the opposite experience than what the Madam President just described. Estonia is on the bleeding edge of implementing technology and law for today's needs. In the United States and other nations like it are not necessarily catching up with either technology or law just yet. And so in the last several years, we have suffered a significant amount of fatigue with access to large amounts of private and sensitive data by unauthorized parties that have really gone unrecourced. A lot of companies have paid fines, but nothing's changed. Some people have gone to jail, but nothing about the system that allowed for those crimes to take place has changed. And I fundamentally believe that it is rooted in one really simple belief that hasn't yet become pervasive in the United States. That is a belief I believe is pervasive in Estonia. Trust underpins every functioning relationship. If it is a relationship that is to last, it is one that is built on trust. Trust is fundamentally built on transparency and observation over time. The laws in my country, in the United States, are built on two fundamental principles that are no longer true in the digital age. One in the United States, our laws are built on possession. If you have something and it is tangible, then there is a lot of law to help resolve situations. In the digital era, many things are no longer tangible. You can have two of the same thing. Who's currently in possession of the one thing the law can account for? It's a very gray space. Secondarily, U.S. law is based on proximity, meaning that you need to be near something or accountable to something near you to figure out what court or jurisdiction or region that you can have the law applied from. Well, in the digital era, when everything is digital, it is virtual. It can be anywhere. And that also means things that you rely on, tangible things like medical records, are no longer in a place close to you. And so the crime may happen to you right here, but the system that can help prosecute recourse in your favor may not necessarily be capable of prosecuting the person or entity that actually perpetrated the crime. And those two things, the lack of tangibility and the lack of proximity of digital information is something the United States legal system is woefully behind it. And that is something that I believe we can even look to nations like Estonia for resolutions that do work. And it's an era that I think commercial entities are going to help shape but without the symbiotic relationship with government and law, it will never be successful. Professor Gasser, what would you say the trust level of people in the digital world? I think it's really interesting, an interesting time. I would characterize it as some sort of a trust paradox, a situation of trust paradox. I assume many in this room came to this place by using internet technology for booking the flight, for making hotel reservations and so forth. And indeed, if you look at millions of people around the world embracing digital technology in all aspects of their lives, whether it's for doing commerce or e-banking or even dating and keeping in touch with friends, we all use digital technology. And in some sense, you could argue, we trust in the working of this technology in its reliability in many cases. But then on the other hand side, as you alluded to, we have a lot of disappointed trust over the past few years, starting perhaps with the Snowden revelations as one big incident and more recently the Cambridge Analytica story. And perhaps more broadly, if you look at survey data, we live in an age where trust in traditional societal institutions is eroding arguably, whether it's government or businesses or media or NGOs, we have a trust problem. And that's broader than technology, of course, but it's also very likely to influence and shape trust in digital technology. And we see that currently particularly in the US around the issue of disinformation and misinformation of propaganda, fake news, where suddenly social media platforms are no longer benefiting from previous trust. And so it will be very interesting to see how these two poles or forces at play will actually develop over time. Some sort of a trust in the functioning of the technology on the one hand side, but then a deeper erosion of trust at the foundational societal level, how we create trust. We just conclude by saying these are indeed societal questions. I would absolutely agree with you that go far beyond technology, but technology factors into it in a complicated way. Professor Li, I would be very interested to know how much trust do people in China have in the digital world and have there been any data bridges incident happened in China? I think China is a country where long history and also there's so many people trust the government, especially some third party to build the trust. But recently I think if you want to discuss with some young people I think maybe have a different view. And just as Mr. President, you mentioned that we use a law but you know that even Estonia is a pioneer country to adopt so many new technologies, but in some sense some younger people will not 100% trust the laws. Even you trust the lawmaking but you don't trust the law enforcement. And if you even trust the law enforcement, how to make sure that there's some illegal use of my data? So I think in China is some mixed situation. For maybe the people age like me, I trust the government and third party, maybe the people just as 20s so you trust the technology. Just maybe the future work we rely on the code instead of the law. But the code is in some sense is very trustworthy for them, for the younger people. Mr. President, I just wanted to react. You say Estonia is at the forefront of technology. This is actually a wrong statement. Estonia is the quickest follower of the technology being created elsewhere. Estonia is a country of 1.3 million people and all we do is we create the legal sandbox where it is good to play for technology. And indeed, 6% of GDP is ICT related, but we mostly get it from smart and quick application, not from patient because we are too small to create... It's a paler country. This is something which I wanted to say otherwise. I totally agree with you. Implementation of the law is key and we've had initially cases. They were highly media-tized. Now everybody knows that the state needs what it says. One thing that sounds very clear to me from everybody's statements so far is that law can help frame intent and understanding. But in today's day and age, technology can help prove that the law was applied correctly. And that relationship is one that is hard to get right in practice. And that is something that I think collaboration from all the stakeholder groups here is worth us thinking about. I'm very sure that it will get gradually better. This understanding also on the public side, how to create this trust and regulate. And the reason I'm assured is that I now see Germany gives people digital identities. France is starting next year. And if they start adding public services also online, so that you will create in the public sector, on the public sector side, and understanding what does it mean to guarantee legal space in technology sphere, how to apply analogue law in digital. It has to grow this knowledge in the public sector. The reason we get it is because we have been as digitalized as Facebook. And this helps us to understand also the business needs. And so that you wouldn't simply say you cannot do it or quell the business initiative. But work in the same way. Because, for example, I give you an example. In Estonia, people are now asking for proactive services. Their question is if I have a child and I have the right to child support and you know my bank account number because I pay you taxes. Why I have to log on and ask? Just pay me. You see, they are seeking state now to take action without human being themselves on the loop. This again means that you need to think what you can legally do in order to make this safe and possible. And if you have a government which has this demand from citizens, it understands it slightly better, I believe, than simply having it in the business sector this kind of customer demand. Do you think this practice can be applied in the states? I mean, there are two very different countries. You know, one very, very big, huge population. One point in Italy. I mean, there are absolutely important lessons to be learned from Estonia for sure. And I would say the emphasis on law as some sort of a trust supporting institution is hardening for me as a law professor. So I like that. At the same time, I would caution a little bit as we try to generalize some of these lessons learned. I do believe law only takes us so far and I've heard it in both your statements already. I was wondering also what is the role of some sort of the mindset and the kind of strategies of empowerment of citizens and ultimately education. Talking about young people, I feel there is a tremendous potential as well in addition to advanced technology and the legal infrastructure that needs to be in place. What's the software that we need to develop, the human operating system as we go forward so that we can embrace the technology for the social good, for the benefit of a large population and mitigate some of the risks and challenges. So again, going back to this human nature of what you're talking about and I'm very interested to hear from Madam President how you look at these software issues as part of the strategy that you're drafting and implementing. One thing which I would very much like to insist on is a term it's coined by me and I call it cyber hygiene. This is something where you basically have to teach all your population that you have to be hygienic in the cyber world. It's very similar to washing hands not to get sick, keeping yourself safe. It's easier if you have a single digital identifier like we do because you don't have millions of them for different applications of internet. But whichever way it is, we need to teach people that it will never be technology which keeps them safe. It will only be themselves updating, etc. But we noticed that in Estonia, for example, one cry didn't pass, not a single case because all systems were updated by people. Obviously, we have been able to make our society more cyber hygienic. It's been hard work. We did run when we digitalized public services. We ran programs both for, we called it Tiger Leap. I don't know why we don't have tigers in Estonia. But anyway, we taught young people, we taught old people to make sure that it's also inclusive, that everybody is able to use, etc. But I fully admit that we entered the internet where the most horrible thing was a virus which will come into the computer unless you have some antivirus program downloaded. Entering as a society to the internet of things is much more scary. Yet there is no other way than education and cyber hygiene because this is the only thing which will help. And then people say it's not possible. But I'm sorry, we taught our people to wash hands and then we didn't have these communicational means. So if you say we cannot do it, then it's lazy policymaking. We can do it if we want to do it and it's absolutely necessary. We teach children at school that bullying in internet is no better than bullying in real life, etc. We have web police making regular visits to Estonian schools explaining kids the risks of internet. You cannot avoid it, I'm afraid. But President, so maybe I can have a question for you because Estonia has people in millions of populations. But you opened the application for the digital ID for other people in other countries. That means in the future you will have a lot of, maybe billions of digital IDs. How can you protect the information? How to educate the people who didn't? Yes, I mean if an e-resident because indeed you are referring to a stone and e-residency program everybody you can all apply for a stone and e-residency and you have access to our identification and verification system. But all that system does for you, it checks other ID card holders whether they are who they claim to be. So in principle you cannot get into the system in an unhygienic way. It has to be with the same identity. If you have lost it and you have written your codes on it, chances are globally that somebody would know how to use it, it's also low, but if it becomes higher then we need again to see what can be done about that. But right now even if somebody impersonates you and gets into the system it cannot do any harm to the system as such. It can of course I mean harm your processes. But nobody else. So it has to be very strictly compartmentalised who has access to what and who. You wouldn't have even access to all our public services simply because you are not a citizen. All you can do is send encrypted email to your friends, your bank account, operate your company if you have one in Estonia, pay taxes online, these things you can do. But only relate it to yourself. So you cannot contaminate the rest. That means the infrastructure and platform, the security and the stability of the infrastructure should be very important. Absolutely. In your case law would not come that much into the game. This is more for example if you are a police officer. Then in principle you can check, I don't know my traffic offence record if you want. You have physical access and there we have by law to forbid and then to implement and then to punish if somebody looked who had nothing to do. But in your case you wouldn't have any of these access rights. You will only have access to your own data which we do protect also from everybody else. Talking about law, I would like you to talk about the general data protection regulation which just started implementing in May this year. Madam President, what was the reason behind this came into being in Europe? My understanding is that people felt that their personal information is not protected and companies felt that they cannot handle people's information without the risk of having to go around and apologize for crimes. They have not created it because simply that was absolutely no law regulating what can be done and what cannot be done. And the state similarly felt that their people and their businesses are online anyway and they cannot leave them alone any longer. And this is how GDPR was born. GDPR, I heard some voices in the states that maybe the United States should follow the example. So we've had both California and New York. It's a California. Move forward with legislation. The California Consumer Data Protection Act is very similar in intent and structure to the European General Data Protection Regulation. I think what we're going to see over a narrow window of time by politics and law scales in the next few years is a standardization of basic principles. That no matter the nation, no matter the citizen, no matter the service, these basic things are going to stop being problems that a single company or a single entity has to face. And we're all going to recognize it's like washing your hands. It makes everybody's life better. And that's going to encourage some new consistencies in certain technology designs, certain ethics and governance models, and certain legal frameworks. Right now, it's everybody for themselves that almost feels like in a nation and now in the U.S. at a state level, but that can't last. The interconnectivity, you can become an e-resident in Estonia if you're in any other country. The interconnectivity of the internet that we all depend on is going to demand that these things become international norms more than necessarily each and every state and each and every country having its own law for certain aspects. How then there is the enforcement and the follow-up around punishment and the follow-up around accountability, that is certainly within the boundaries of a nation to sort out. But whether or not you must show me what information you've collected, whether or not you must give me positive affirmation of what has and has not happened to the information that you've collected, I fundamentally believe a few years from now we'll all look back and laugh that that wasn't already accepted as something that would be a right and not necessarily a feature. If I may disagree with respect, I would agree first on the importance of GDPR as some sort of a new gold standard that of course shines throughout the world. We see it in Latin America. GDPR becomes a reference point in many parts of Asia as well. As a footnote, I think it will be very interesting to see whether there are from these continents kind of alternative approaches to GDPR which also comes with some drawbacks as we all know and whether there is a fourth way, so to speak, coming from either Latin America or Asian jurisdictions. But where I would be less optimistic is that we will see some sort of a trend towards a global coherent set of norms. At the level of principles, I would say we have those already. There is rough agreement. The OECD principles have been around for a long time. I think there is international law. At a very abstract level, fair enough, there are global standards. But then when it gets more granular to the level of detail of a GDPR, I think it's very unlikely that we'll see a uniform world law of privacy. The reason is because of very different political economies that we're dealing with that also play out at the geopolitical level. We're a nice group of people from different countries here and if you look at the interest and agenda within the US, if you look at the culture and trajectory of Europe and contrast that with China or host country here, I think these are very different political economies that will shape the outcomes of policies and laws, especially when it comes to data and especially as we are entering the age of AI where data becomes such a decisive factor. So I'm a little bit less convinced, although I would find it desirable for all the reasons you mentioned, to be less optimistic that we'll see a high degree of interoperability across these different jurisdictions. Professor Lee, how do you... How do you say you mentioned GDPR? I think GDPR is a good start for the data protection and adequately more people or adequately more government officials in the industry and civil society should know more about the data protection issues. But I'm not optimised about GDPR deployment because there's a lot of issues to... Maybe one of that is how to make sure that technology and law enforcement can be perfect. So I agree with Professor... Now I think it's like Europe has GDPR and California has their law, China has their law. So in the future that means that the international company needs to face different kind of laws. Maybe there's different kind of requirement. That will make the internet to be fragmented. So I didn't know what it is. Maybe now is the right time to start to take some action to have some multinational collaboration to find some consensus about the data protection. That it should be good. Even you mentioned that the OECD and other organisations have similar concerns, but it's not enough in this era. So now I feel depressed because up to now there's no such kind of organisation can do some coordination about data protection. How to make some consensus among those countries. And even in a nation, only government officials get involved in that. Not enough involvement from the industry and also from the academia and civil society area. So I think now we need to think about how to have this global platform to do some collaboration on the policy making. What sort of efforts are being made in China for protection of personal data? In China? In China, yes. In China how to protect the personal information. I think if I recall my memory, China starts to discuss how to protect the personal information since 15 years ago. But there's over one decade past, but it's not a very perfect solution for that. Even now the China government discuss how to protect the personal information. It's just as similar as the GDPR. I think over 12 items is still the same with the GDPR. But now it's a little bit difficult for China to do that. Why? China is a very large population, a very diverse culture, a very diverse education background, and also we have another 600 million people who cannot connect to the Internet. So if you only discuss this issue, can you discuss this issue because other people cannot connect to the Internet. So it's a very diverse country. So how to mix the consensus is quite different. Just as I mentioned, I think that this information is my privacy information. Maybe younger children just want to post on that. It's to be disclosed that if you're excited. I think it's a different concern. The people know there is a risk, right? It's a risk. I think in 2010, I can remember that. It's a big leakage for the user information. It's called CSDN. There's over six million personal information was leaked. It was attacked by the hikers. So because that's a very popular website. So that means the same user account in other websites. So it's a big issue. But even after a couple of months, nobody will concern that. Even some people don't know this memory. That's a big leakage for the website. So maybe you don't know the data protection. It's just a trust website. But maybe in some day, your information was disclosed to others. I just wanted to also say that we Europeans do not see GDPR as universal law because first of all it isn't. It's a regulation. Now every country has to go through their own legal space and apply. And countries can go further, for example, in applying this regulation and set higher restrictions and higher. President, they asked all of the international companies need to follow the law. They need to follow the law. This is exactly, but you need to follow not general GDPR. But every country will go through their own law space and set in the law also taking responsibility, for example, for how public sector deals and owns the information and data. And private companies who normally are part of creating this public sector ecosystem have to apply also the national law. And it has been very educative exercise, for example, for us because we, of course, have a better legal set than many. At the same time, maybe because computing power and storage has got quickly cheaper, we haven't thought about, for example, how long we'll hold any data available through digital databases, even to the state itself. So it's an educative exercise for every country to think these things through but outcomes could actually differ for different countries. So pay attention. Agreed. And if I may introduce another angle to the discussion, if you look at some of the largest problems we face in the world, whether it's global health crisis or global warming or nutrition, actually many of these problems we will only be able to solve based on data, on better data, on more data using the advanced analytical techniques we have available. And so while, of course, it's fair in the context of trust to talk about GDPR and data protection and law, I'm also very concerned how do we get enough data sharing going on so that we can embrace these new technologies for the social good, whether it's in the context of the sustainable development goals or in the nation context. And so, again, I think there we are still in a learning process and it seems like we have a pendulum that swings back and forth between reacting to some of the challenges we talked about before and misuses and bad things that happened and we enact tough laws, but how to get the balance right also to have laws in place that enable the sharing of data and the good uses, the social desirable uses of data and data analytics. And that to me, GDPR, I'm not totally convinced that this gives us the answer to that balancing question and I feel that's another challenge. One of the biggest risks associated with frameworks like GDPR and unique implementations of it not just within Europe but others trying to follow suit is this vulcanization outcome, this compartmentalization of the internet and the information flow that the internet has enabled for the last 30 years. Every person in this room and every person that will watch this broadcast will have benefited from incredible multinational multi-stakeholder information sharing leading to advancements in technology that have made all of our lives significantly better. At the same time, those tools and techniques have been used for harm by bad people and it is a constant balancing act. I personally fear waking up to a world where we get the privacy side right but we get the collaboration side wrong. I think that will do more harm than the inverse. I totally wanted to agree with you that while regulating we have also always been very much thinking about how to at the same time not restrict the data use and I would actually go away from digital to give you an example but this is not related only to the digital technologies. Estonia also has an Estonian genome law which makes it clear how you can gather population level genetic information about people, what right people have to this information, what right they have to distribute this information, for example, share it with their doctors and how companies and also scientists can access that information without knowing with whom information they are working with. And we did this law also, I think it was 2000 which means that in every case you are dealing with sensitive personal data in high quantities you have to think through both sides because if we had only said you can do the analysis but you cannot use the data on the other side then we would have had to pay good government money to get the Estonian Genome Foundation. Well, we said yes you can use and we guarantee both sides the safety and therefore private sector came in and created the Estonian Genome Foundation so they were ready to pay for it, for us simply because there was this legal space which allowed data use. So I do see that governments are anyway gathering huge mass of data. Our statistical office can demonstrate how tax data turns into macro data. I mean these plots are one of the most interesting I've ever seen. I mean you really see how the economy is changing and where it is going allowing you also regional predictions for example but for that to happen all governments need to take care that if a scientist or a company comes and asks can you give me this information? Because I know you have it. You will have to have a law which will make the public office say yes, if you respect these conditions and accept that you will never know whom it belongs to and if only too few well number of people have this kind of information we will not give it to you but otherwise you can use it. Only then will the data world actually materialize in cooperation with government and private sector. What do you think in 2000 led Estonia to the realization that that level of specificity was needed in law? In genetic information gathering we had a really good scientific base who said we would like to do something like this. We think it will be big, personal medicine will be big. We thought at that time that medicines will relate to or will basically be relating to your genetic basis and therefore it's important to know everybody's genome. This has not happened, there are other values but we knew we will not be able to pay for this so our plan was to quickly create the legal space to get things paid by the private sector and you know it worked quite long but then public sectors elsewhere, each one, they messed the market up. They started to buy this kind of service and therefore for 10 years we couldn't gather additional probes now it is really cheap, 25 euros per person. We are again gathering and the benefit appears to be different. It's preventive medicine. People know their risks and they can act accordingly. There is still no medicine out which will treat me but not you because we are genetically different. There are some coming but the biggest use, we now have about 10% of population screened by the ERN, the biggest use is preventive medicine. So you see, it took 20 years before we reap the benefits but we did it because we listened to the scientific community and of course we realized if we were a very poor country at that point we wanted to leapfrog and this is why we had the courage to do it. If I may follow up to that then in a lot of countries around the world right now initiatives that might take 20 years to be rewarded such as this one wouldn't survive a single political life cycle of an election. How do you feel that the political apparatus that is evolving in today's social media-led kind of society could start to support initiatives that go beyond the hype cycle of an election? Yes, I think you are very wrong that frankly speaking every politician has to be ready to take decisions which will implement and really show the benefits in 20 years time. It may mean your own political career will be 4 years long but this is what you do in democratic societies.  I can tell you this has happened in Estonia too to politicians and if you get too timid and too focused on what people think today or say today you cannot get anything done and I think this is a big problem in this lack of trust to political leadership. Politics is not part of entertainment sector. It's about leadership, so you have to have the courage. Of course you have to know also how to explain to people and work hard on it. I can tell you we have worked very hard on this explanation side as well. Huge campaign we are following when we approved our genetic information law but finally you take the political responsibility when you do it. Well we understand the situation is very different from country to country. But because we are in China I would like to ask Professor Li a little bit more about China, the situation of China. The concept of cyberspace sovereignty which President Xi Jinping has repeatedly talked you know called for and it's important. Can you tell us the significance of that concept? Sure you know everybody mentioned that the internet is global. The unique internet is a global infrastructure to build a global one village in the future. But at any side if I try to understand our president's concept because you know even the world have a internet but the world have countries and every citizen have their countries and different countries have different laws. If you say something happened that means some specifically law by this country will be adopted. So you cannot use only one internet to deal with everything. In some specific area you should respect different kind of law in different country and then to do the business or deal with some conflict or just for the even the economic development. So I didn't say it doesn't mean that our president can emphasize this concept. It doesn't mean that it doesn't respect the one internet. So it's just to tell the people you need to respect the localised requirement and localised laws. President. President. Cyber space sovereignty. How do you see that concept? Frankly speaking I am among those who don't want cyberspace to be too restricted. I mean I totally accept that we even compete on our cyber law. I mean we set it more permissive or less permissive etc. So it may be different to certain extent. But then we have to also make these bridges which will cross these seams in the internet because the whole idea is that we are global. We work globally and we act globally and we cannot do that and if we cannot do that then it's actually pointless doing things digitally because then you could still sit in your car in the morning go to your office which is two blocks away or 100 kilometres away and the end of story. The tech world what it does it's a fantastic enabler of an individual because you don't have to gather anymore for example into enterprises in order to work productively. You can quite to the contrary choose yourself an extremely narrow specialisation and offer this independently for 10 companies globally in the world. And this is a huge enabler. You can be a poor girl in Africa who learns I don't know if it's tax code and works as a bookkeeper from Africa. It's a huge enabler and I think therefore you should be absolutely careful of not blocking these kind of enabling things. For example if you set a law that bookkeeping data which is based for your tax data can never leave the country then you have closed this alley for poor African girls to choose this profession and gain a really good living standard from that. So you have to think at every step this kind of laws exist by the way in some countries. Tax data it has to be inland always. So you see it's very easy to cut this growth and this opportunity by wrong legal space setting and we have to all the time think of enabling not limiting enabling is what we need to do. Internet started off as a tool of globalisation and seamless and borderless but after a few decades it's changing too. The picture is changing. How do you see the progress of what internet has brought to the world? I mean at the core I think the promise of as we described it of an interconnected world that vision that the internet introduced where we can share information and knowledge across the globe. I think we're close to that. It's very important at the same time to acknowledge as Professor Lee mentioned before that there are still significant digital divides and participation gaps so there are large populations not yet connected and even within the connected populations there are different skill gaps and literacy barriers that makes it hard for people to equally embrace the opportunity of new technology. But overall I think the trend is towards more interconnectedness. But you're quite right. The forces at play have shifted. A lot of enthusiasm maybe 25 years ago that we would move thanks to the internet to a more decentralised democratic world with a lot of bottom-up opportunities for participation and engagement. I think we've learned that that's not the reality as of 2018 but we see new trends of concentration. We talked about big companies already and we'll perhaps spend a few more minutes on that topic. And you know some of it is within the economics, some of it is driven by interests. We also touched upon of course the fact that governments themselves are not without interests. The internet has become such an important driver of economies and has also national security implications that the stakes are high both on the private sector and the public sector side. And not surprisingly that has messed with the more academic vision of an equal everyone is just the user version of the internet from 20 years ago or 30 years ago. So being in a world where data is an asset, data is power, more data is money, right? Is the digital world being kind of stagnant in terms of who owns the data? How do you see that from industry point of view? So we have clients in our company that are multinationals, they're global 100 firms, their household names and they're all that because they've earned the trust and business of very large populations of the consumer world. Some of them are individual consumers, some of them are other large companies consuming their goods. I say all of that because those same clients are definitely recognizing and we've been involved in a lot of their conversations about this recognition that as they move forward in a digital era, putting trust in a digital sense as a competitive differentiator to the markets that they're in is going to be a make or break moment for the next phase of their business growth. And that's from CEOs down at these organizations. It's no longer this idea that it's the IT side of this house, the security side of the house that thinks about these things. That then leads to a slightly different view on data ownership. And what we've seen in some of the more avant-garde business kind of strategy sessions from these CEO-led initiatives and even some nation-state-led conversations is it's about data custodianship and data handling, less about data ownership. Because it's not a commodity that once again is tactile and is singular, it is something that can be shared and distributed at little to no cost with the same impact. Folks are thinking how can they get competitive offering services where they're the most trusted custodian and handler of the data and making that the reason why the population and the future will do business with their services versus say somebody else's. Similar to making maybe the cyber domain as a competitive differentiator to the residency of choosing where to do business in a nation. It was quite complicated what you said. It's simpler way but exactly the same thing. I'm not a specialist so I'm a generalist so I have to keep it simple. Simple thing is you don't have to own data to benefit as a society from the data. Very simple example, web doctors.  Lots of esoteric rubbish stuff. Now if you have proper trained web doctors, an algorithm which is learning from the cases it has been handling, I know NHS for example is experimenting with these systems, then the social benefits are much larger than simple money or gains so you don't need to own data to get benefits from that. Another example is we think it's only about data and smart people and engineers and I totally disagree. If you take handicraft sector, previously if you were in that sector you had to go to the markets to sell your stuff. Then you got more effective, you had an agreement with a souvenir shop in the capital if you were lucky. Now all you need is a home page. In Estonia there is a man who does bows and dares, world class really beautiful, expensive, nobody in Estonia almost would buy them. His closest clients are 1,000 kilometres away and I mean he came from South Africa, has settled in Estonia where nobody lives in the middle of the world and he's perfectly able to feed himself in a royal way by handicraft or take handicraft people. Previously if you were an autistic person who is afraid to talk to the world and you only have one habit, you really like to knit red socks in your own room. You didn't have any possibility to make living. Now among the billions of people connected to internet there are probably enough takers for your red socks and you don't have to talk to anybody. See, it's much bigger than data. It really comes down to the real analog work as well. Do you want to follow that? I didn't mention that. Sure the data is very, very useful and that's why so many companies want to get more data from internet users but remember that data is useful but it's also very dangerous because you need to invest a lot, have a big cost to protect the data. But maybe in the beginning there are so many industries just want to get data but they don't want to invest a lot of practical data so in the future there are some crises for this company. Even similar as the country. Now there are so many countries that want to get more data from the people but they keep on how the country and how the internet company can use the data. So I think now it's a very critical time because nowadays the average internet penetration in the world is over 50%. I think it's a very critical time. But I want to claim that to make sure the ownership of data doesn't mean you want to close the data. To clear the ownership of data is to better use the data. Just like the firm, if the firm respects every expert, your view is your view but you can permit me to use your view, use your knowledge that will make the firm better. You just lack the work. Everybody controls the data but you should respect the data, it belongs to myself. But I allow you to use my data to make the internet more useful. I don't invest the philosophy. We have a few minutes before the ending but I would like to ask each one of you what will be the key for you to feel safe in the digital world as an individual and what would you like to see for the world to be safer and protected or for you to feel more protected? Start with the second part of the question which is easier. I truly believe some of the challenges we touched upon are ecosystem level challenges. And therefore our approach is how we address the challenges as well as embrace the opportunities will require the working together of all stakeholders, whether it's companies, whether it's individual users, civil society, governments, we need to work together and we need to deploy all the instruments we have available in the toolbox, whether it's privacy by design or legislation or incentive-based new business models. We really need to embrace it and look at it as an ecosystem level issue what comes in terms of digital transformation. And therefore the first part of the question, it's harder to say is there one thing that makes me feel safe. Yet of course I try to contribute in my sphere of influence. I try to make good decisions as a user. I hope I can be helpful in helping to make good decisions in my job as I talk to policy makers. So of course we can do a lot as individuals but we have to understand this is bigger than any one of us. This is an ecosystem level challenge. Mr. Kasich. Certainly echo that and just repeat something that's already been said many times. The fear of getting the collaboration side of the future of the Internet wrong is what I personally am most concerned about and that's going to require a clear recognition from all stakeholders that this is a global challenge with global opportunity on the other side of getting it right and making sure we never lose sight of that. To the first part of your question, that's a real challenge. I wish somebody had the answer to it. But for me it's about knowing as much about what's not happening with my information as I know about what is happening with it and making sure that the systems and the technology that are telling me about what is not happening with my data are able to be trusted independently of those using those systems to process my data. Professor Lee. I think if I feel safe, there's two points. One, I know it very clear. One is a hundred percent I don't know. So if I want to know it clear then I mean who use my data to do a business even if it's government or company or some legal entity is transparent and a combo. So that would make me feel safe. Even if they use my data. But I know how to use that. And maybe the best solution for the current stage there's so many people lack of the knowledge for internet usage. Not everybody is the expert for technology. So maybe for some people they don't know it's safe. They don't need to know so many security instants to make them scared to use the internet. Just worry about everything will be steal by the hackers and it will make me feel dangerous. So don't need to let people know more scared issues for them. Even just across the street in Tianjin or Beijing I feel safe but actually there is some danger so you just got some car at good speed. But actually 99% is safe. Even now there is a lot of issue for internet now. But mostly it's safe. My main worry actually is that the academicians have analyzed a lot how international law space in analog world applies also to cyberspace. But we have pretty few elements of international law in cyberspace in place because countries simply have not declared clearly their intentions. And I think it's extremely important that we do this. And that's why Estonia is running for the United Nations Security Council because as a small country we don't have time for small objectives. So we want to bring this discussion at the global level. And my suggestion is if we start doing it let's not think of technologies of today. For example I would like to have guarantees that if singularity one day happens we as an international community I mean through AI, thinking, self-developing AI if this truly happens I want to have an international community in harmony on what obligations to report and what rights to verify. We do have for example let's imagine this takes a lot of energy probably you see an energy disappearing through a black hole this could trigger an international monitoring mission or perhaps all neuron network like computer systems which are large enough need to be declared and somehow monitored or open to international monitoring. Because if we think about singularity we will also cover narrow AI and all the current autonomous and automated systems which also pose a security risk. So this is something which I miss but I do not intend to sit and complain. I intend to act. Great, I think it's time to wrap up. So thank you very much for all your insights and contribution today. Thank you, thank you so much.


Universities in the United States are looking at an average of about 60% graduating in six years. I don't know any other company that would be allowed to have those kind of outcomes and still charge the kind of money that's being charged. I think there's sort of a trifecta of failure happening for students in higher ed right now based on time, cost, and location. It's kind of like come to our place, come on our timeline, do the courses we tell you to do. Instead of saying how can we put the student at the center of the learning experience, how can we get you to work more on your timeline, your lived reality. The Global Education Movement is a division at Southern New Hampshire University. We bring bachelor's degrees and pathways to employment, to refugees, migrants, and other learners that would otherwise not have access to higher education. Students are the drivers of time when they start a project, when they complete a project, and then when we layer in the partnership and the internship component, you've got a degree program that puts the student's needs and timeline at the center. At the heart of the success of the model is partnerships and how SNHU engages with a locally based partner in every location where we're operating. So if you were to visit each one of our locations, you would find a partner who's really the expert in what refugees or migrants might be experiencing on the ground and helping us guide along the program in a way that really is adaptable to the needs of our students. The benefit of empowering people at different locations is really evident at Scalabrini. If somebody has buy-in and is able to really push ideas forward, they're fully invested in the project. They're going to make it real and come to life. I came here in South Africa as a refugee. It was very hard. When I was approached by the Scalabrini Center to become one of the academic coach, I just thought, wow, this is a chance for me. SNHU has invested a lot in me. It's my turn to give back to the community. You want everybody in this community to be empowered and become somebody in life. Currently over 90% of our students are on track to earn their bachelor's degree within four years. The model itself has potential for anybody who's not accessing or finding success in higher education. There are a lot of learners that we could serve if we stop focusing on particular groups and more about the power of transforming how higher ed works and thinking about everybody being able to access that model. The graduation days at Kiziba Camp, which happened on the basketball court and there's thousands of kids totally captivated in that moment, means that the whole community can see themselves differently. That's the transformation of students for themselves and also that something else is bigger and possible.


Hi everybody. Hello. Welcome to our old-day movie workshop. I'm Peter for those joining you. And I'm going to be the host today. And yeah, we've got a really vibrant movie coming up. I'm looking forward to it. And yeah, I'll just let you know how the day flows. So we're going to start with David in the movie commentary. And then afterwards we have a 10-minute break, and that's the time for you to submit your questions and your prayers via our form. And then we'll have David in the closing session and he'll respond to all your questions and prayers. So I'm going to pass it straight over to David now. Thank you, Pete. Hi everyone. Welcome. Welcome. I hope you're ready for a deep, deep, deep dive today because we are dropping way down the rabbit hole today, way, way down into the light. And this is going to be an experience. I've been up for quite a while, and wow, in my meditations Jesus is just downloading, downloading, downloading. Saying, here's, this is it. I said, this is it. He's like, yeah, what are you saying? He said, get off the fence.  Come on, get off the fence.  And I said, get off the fence. Okay, if I get off the fence, then where do I go? He says, go over to the swimming pool. And he says, and don't even think about the waiting pool, the kiddie pool. Walk all the way around. Don't just stick your feet in and your ankles and toes and splash around in this pool. I am the pool. Get in the pool. Get in the pool. Go in the deep end.  Stop intellectualizing.  Don't mess around. Don't fool with this. This is your opportunity to use this lifetime to transcend the dream, to wake up from the dream. This isn't about, you know, just sticking with the concepts and, and, you know, using mantras and everything. This is about an actual, actual, direct experience. This is our, we are the tribe of Christ right here. And we are, he's taking us, oh my gosh, we're going down the water slide today. He's, he's taking us down the water slide into the deep end. It's, it's about starting to realize that the dream doesn't hold anything that you really want. Don't be thinking about future dreams because he wants us to see the dream from the Holy Spirit's perspective right now. And he's telling us the only way we'll be satisfied is if we forgive the world and, and see that we're dreaming. And, and from that dreaming position in our mind, we can be awakened. We can allow the Holy Spirit, God will take us from there. But God cannot take us as a human being. God can't take us as a body into spirit because spirit didn't create the body. Spirit didn't create this world. Spirit didn't create anything of time and space. Spirit has nothing really to do with it. Only the Holy Spirit can use the symbols that the ego made, which is time and space, bodies and all the, everything else and take us to the light. So sometimes people say to me, well, yeah, that's the prayer of my heart, but, but I don't feel like God hears my prayers. Well, let's look, look throughout history. Jesus came to demonstrate that there is no death, that there's only eternal life and, and that you live forever and ever and ever. That's pretty strong. Even though that was 2000 years ago on planet Earth, that's a pretty strong witness. He healed the sick. He raised the dead. He said, come on, come follow me. I'm calling you out of the world. I'm calling you out of the world. Let your heart get activated. It's okay to get fired up about oneness and love and God. It's okay. It's okay. That's your birthright. That's your inheritance. You were created by God. You will forever be a perfect creation of God. So it's okay. Let's, let's remember that. And then as we watch history, we had all kinds of mystics and saints that followed Jesus. The prophets came before Jesus. Many mystics and saints came after Jesus. And, you know, there were things that were pretty tough plagues and wars. I think of World War I, First World War, and, you know, there's explosions and bombs going off and bodies seeming to die left and right in Europe. And what does Jesus do? He sends Mother Mary to Portugal. That's right, Antonio. That's right. He sent, he sent Mother Mary to three little children that could see her. And he, and Mother Mary said, pray. This is a war, this is a wartime. All Jesus wants you to do is pray, pray, please pray now with me. And then that was World War I. And right before World War I, in the 1800s, Jesus sent Mary Baker Eddie. That's right. For centuries, people were futzing around with the theologies of what did Jesus mean? Well, Mary Baker Eddie started sharing back in the 1800s and early 1900s what Jesus actually meant. And all the other denominations are trying to grab, do the best that they can to practice the teachings of Jesus. But Mary Baker Eddie proceeded World War I. She said, there's no mind and matter, no life, truth, substance, intelligence and matter. She really pointed the way. She said, it's about a transformation in your, in your mind and lining up with the spirit, the light in your mind. So, okay, Mary Baker Eddie, we had Jesus, we had all the prophets and saints. Then we get to World War II and Adolf Hitler. So we see Hitler and the German, the Panzer Army trying to take over Europe, trying to take over the world. Who did Jesus send during World War II? He sent Mahatma Gandhi. He sent Gandhi at the same time that Hitler was trying to take over the world. There's a simple tiny little man in India that was saying, non-violence is the way. Non-violence is the way. And Gandhi prayed and he fasted and he devoted his whole life to non-violence and he lived at the same time that Adolf Hitler lived. So anybody who saw Hitler and was horrified with concentration camps and destruction, destruction, human destruction should have looked, turn your eyes to India, to Mahatma Gandhi, Mohandas K. Gandhi. And then as we move forward, you know, we've had lots of saints. We've had the Joel Goldstein, we've had so many mystics and saints that basically are saying turn within. So today we are going to really pull the plug on the ego. And what I mean by that is we're going to start to realize that you can't dabble with the Course in Miracles even because Jesus says this Course will be believed entirely or not at all. It doesn't do any good to banter the concepts if you don't have a direct contact with Jesus. The concepts won't get you anywhere.  And that's not your God's will for you. For many Christians, you know, it's time to get off the fence. It's time to quit debating theology and live the teachings of Jesus Christ. It's time to stop the arguments, stop the debates and really pray and go into these deep teachings because Jesus is showing us that God's will for us is eternal life. It's not to be a Christian or a Buddhist or Hindu or a Muslim. Those are more concepts, more theologies. That's the trampoline. We're supposed to spring off the trampoline. We're going for a direct experience. Who's in with me? Who's ready to wake up in this lifetime? Who says enough of time and space? Who says enough of trudging along? This is time to wake up. So, you voted for the polls, the themes this week, and this is what you voted for. This is what is going to draw our movie for today. The first one that you voted for with receiving the most vote was taking back projections, having full responsibility for my mind. Taking back projections to the mind. Don't take them back to your personality self. Don't say I so and so have to figure out a way now to take the projections of the whole world of time and space back to my personality self, my private mind. Ridiculous. No, this is taking all the projections ever of time and space. Any event in history, you're going to take back all of history today. All of history.  I was actually looking at one of the lessons today, workbook lesson 158, and the lesson 158 is from Jesus. Today I learned to give as I receive. And this is how he starts the lesson. What has been given you? The knowledge that you are a mind, in mind, and purely mind. Sinless forever, wholly unafraid because you are created out of love, nor have you left your source remaining as you were created. Okay, so maybe you're accustomed to thinking of yourself as a human being. Maybe you believe you have a story. Maybe you believe you have a personal history. No, Jesus is teaching us. You were a mind, you were created in the mind of God, you're Christ, an idea in the mind of God, and you remain as God created you. You have never been a body or in a body, and that's why we need a deep movie because this fog of forgetfulness, this mesmerism, this hypnotism, this dream of separation isn't true. None of it is true. Not a single string or fabric of this dream of separation has ever existed for one instant. And we have to have an experience. So Jesus is picking out a masterful movie today to take us into the experience. I hope you're ready because, like they say in the matrix, hold on to your hat because Kansas is going by, time and space are going by by today. Second theme, the purpose of my relationships is the healing of my mind. The purpose of all relationships, that's right, the purpose of ones that were called enemies, and friends, and lovers, and acquaintances, and everyone you think of in the space. If you can think of Adolf Hitler, then you have a relationship with Adolf Hitler, and basically Jesus is saying the purpose of my relationships is the healing of my mind. How's that for a reinterpretation of Adolf Hitler? The purpose of Hitler is the healing of my mind. The purpose of Putin is the healing of my mind. The purpose of Osama bin Laden is the healing of my mind. The purpose of Saddam Hussein is the healing of my mind. The purpose of Mussolini is the healing of my mind, and the purpose of all my lovers, family, friends, and anybody I've ever heard of. The purpose of Einstein is the healing of my mind. Okay, I choose the experience that I want to have. It's a choice. Isn't that great to know? It's a choice. It's not a skill.  It's not the right conditions and form. It's not the perfect partner. It's not the perfect house, the perfect location, the perfect climate. It's a choice in the mind. That's it. And aren't we grateful that that choice is available for us? Because that's the most glorious thing I think there is, is that we can choose to forgive. We can choose to release this world, and that's the greatest gift we could ever have. If we believe in separation, then the choice to forgive it has got to be the greatest gift. Better than diamonds, better than gold, better than millions of dollars. The choice to forgive in our mind is our option to opt out of linear time and to opt in. Not to a mailing list, but to opt into eternal life. That's not small. That's not a small thing. Letting go of weakness and stepping into strength. Yes. Taking full ownership of what the Spirit gives me. So, before I get into the movie, I just want to say that you have to start to see how practical salvation really is. You know, with even within the Course in Miracles community, there's all these bantering on topics that are really much ado about nothing. I mean, one of the questions that a lot of Course in Miracles students ask is which version of a Course in Miracles should I study in practice? Well, let's take a teaching from the Course itself. Seek not to change the world. Seek rather to change your mind about the world. Let's apply a Course in Miracles to that. It's a book. It's just a book. It's a book in time and space. And I happen to have an original one. This is a hardbound... Yep, text, breathless text, workbook made for teachers. It's a hardbound clarification of term supplements. Seek not to change the Course. Seek rather to change your mind about the Course. If you're concerned about which version of a Course in Miracles you should be studying, maybe you should open up to workbook lesson number seven, which is, I see only the past. Because all versions of a Course in Miracles are words and they're all the past. And this movie will help us with that because we don't need different versions of anything. We need to accept the Atonement. We need to forgive this world. We need to forgive all of time and space if we're going to wake up to God. The question should not be which version of a Course in Miracles should I study. Don't waste your time on questions like this because if you apply lesson number seven, I see only the past, basically when you ask that question, what version of a Course in Miracles should I study, you're saying which version of the past is best for me. And Jesus' correct answer is none. There are no versions of the past that are helpful. All you're to do is see the Course and see the world. Forget this world, forget this Course and come with open, empty hands unto your God. Don't stick with arguing and debating theology. Don't debate about different versions of anything. It's like saying, which chewing gum should I chew? Jesus is like, come on, stop the chewing.  Get off the fence and get into the deep end. Really, let's really forgive the world. And this movie today is so, so good. So out of all the movies, this actually in our movie Watchers Guide to Enlightenment, this is one of our top 10 movies of all time. This movie is a very unconventional love story because it's a movie that's going to take you into a love story to end all love stories. We want eternal love of God. In the end, we don't want stories of love. We want actual connection to God. This movie is going to take place in India. Yay for India, that's right. Kenneth, in our community meeting, he went on, we should be praising God and singing and dancing all day. Every day should be a festival. We should just chant and sing to our hearts' content. And then there he is, and in the yellow back there. I thought, Jesus was like saying, oh, it's time to use an India movie. This time, if we're going off in the deep end, we have to go to the traditions of the great mystics and saints. Legendary mystics and saints. Legendary teachings. You know, we're not talking about like United States and Europe and all these little drinky-dinky countries. India, ooh, now you're asking for it. You're withdraw all the projections of time and space. Now we're going, we're going beyond Advaita Vedanta. We're going today. Jesus has taken this down, right down into the light. Because in the end, we have to realize that it's only the depth that will free our mind. We're not going to reach heaven by bantering around concepts and debating concepts. The time for debating concepts has ended. We're going swimming and the tribe of Christ is leaving land and we're going into the pool and we're not coming out. We're not coming out of the pool. We're not going to dry off. The monastery will dry off, but the tribe of Christ is going dipping into the deep pool of Christ, the pool of wisdom, and we're not coming out. We're not buying a ticket back to the world again. We don't care about the shore. It's time to bring this ship into the shore and throw away the oars. We're going swimming and we're not coming back. We're going swimming in the pool of Christ and we're not coming back. So the movie today, as Jesus has taken on a deep ride today, we're going to watch Slumdog Millionaire, one of the MWG Top 10 Movies of All Time. And this movie came out in 2008. Does anybody remember 2008? What was going on in the world in 2008? That was a great recession. All the markets crashed. The property values crashed. I remember 2008. I was going to Australia and my friend, Les, who was a captain down there of Qantas Airlines, he got laid off. He took a voluntary layoff because nobody was flying. 2008 was when the world was kind of crashing economically. And Jesus and the angels are laughing because to them, prosperity and form and crash, economic disaster are actually the same. Remember, all of the images are not true. So economic prosperity is as big of an illusion as economic depression. Knowing God has nothing to do with accumulating money and possessions. Knowing God has nothing to do with economic growth. In fact, here during this great 2008 recession and global recession, here comes this gem. Jesus just lays an egg. He delivers Slumdog Millionaire. Say, here, let's get back on track. It's about knowing God. It's about remembering God. It's not about survival of the body. It's about remembering the light and realizing that never once were you a body. You never once were a body. You believed you were. You dreamed a dream of exile from God, but that dream wasn't real. So this is where we get to the heart of forgiveness. So in this movie, we have... It's a pretty... I'll say it's an intense right. Today, keep your hands and your fingers inside the carpet. This is one, do not try to leave the carpet today because this one's going to have poverty. It's going to have, you know, what seems to be harming children in it. It's going to have a gangster in it. It's going to have a slumlord. It's like a slumlord is like a version of a pimp. You know, like prostitutes have a pimp. Slumlord is going to have a slumlord in it. His name is Mammon. And when I saw that, I said, oh yeah, this slumlord, his name Mammon, it reminded me of what Jesus said in the Bible. You cannot serve both God and Mammon. So the slumlord's name is Mammon. Then there's a gangster. In the movie as well. But mainly, we're going to watch two little boys in India who have grown up in the slums. And the movie will take place mainly in two locations in India, Bombay and Mumbai. My phone is talking to me now. The main character I would say probably is Jamal. And Jamal has a brother named Salim. And there will come a point. Some of you know of the riots in India. There have been riots all over the world. But India has been a place where there oftentimes are riots. Usually between the Hindus and the Muslims.  They're basically going to lose their mother in a riot where she's going to be struck and knocked out in a pool of water and they're going to become orphaned. Then there's Lakita, I think is her name. She's going to be a little girl who's also orphaned when her parents are killed. And so these three little orphaned children, basically, three of them, Latika and Jamal and Salim, these are going to be our main characters in the movie today. Three orphan children from the slums of India. Now, as they go through there, we're going to see flashbacks showing their life. And basically, we're going to see flashbacks to their childhood, which is quite extreme. I think most watching today in the tribe of Christ have not had quite the extreme life as the world would judge it of being orphaned, losing your parents, having to survive from being children in what seems to be an egoic world, a cutthroat world, of kill or be killed, of lies, steal, cheat. This is an Indian culture of the slums where basically the slum lords would basically even take children and lure them with Coca-Cola's and lure them away from the extreme poverty that they had only to put the children back on the street to beg so that the slum lords could get money. Talk about child trafficking using children to make money. Imagine that being your career, using children from the slums to make money. Again, of course, they would even do things like they would blind the children. Some of the children were blinded so that they would get more money. Imagine taking out a child's eyes and a child's eyesight just to make money. That's how extreme this movie will show us, is there's a lot of very, very, very extreme scenes in this movie. So keep your hands on the carpet today. Don't let the ego take you off on a ride because the overall movie is what Jesus is showing us. It's going to be using the lives of these three children to go towards the deepest teaching of a course of miracles and all the world's spiritualities and religions. If you read it in a course of miracles, you read it in workbook lesson 132. There is no world. That's the central idea that this course attempts to teach. You can see that you will not reach the state of there is no world if you keep bantering concepts. The concepts are just going to reinforce the belief that there is a world and you must go beyond belief to truth. You must go beyond concepts and theologies and philosophies to an actual direct experience of God. That's the whole point of everything. There is no other point.  Wouldn't you rather have a direct experience of God than hold on to those kind of concepts? This movie will help you actually forgive the mystics and saints. It will help you forgive all of linear time because it's actually going to take us in a love story all the way to the experience that you can give your mind permission to let go of believing in this world entirely. That's how deep it goes. This movie is about pulling the plug on the ego entirely. This is not about trying to make a better world. This is not about trying to improve the world. I know it's pretty extreme, but actually Jesus is going to teach us through this movie today that there is no better or worse world. There is no better conditions or worse conditions. He's going to use what seem to be extreme conditions just like he did with the crucifixion. Everyone who reads about Jesus and the crucifixion and the resurrection knows that is an extreme teaching example to have a man crucified and bleed on a cross and then come resurrected when the stone is rolled away. That is an extraordinary extreme example, but today is going to be a very strong extreme teaching example. This movie is not Bambi. This movie, I'd say thank you Walt for all your Disney movies and good metaphysics and everything, but this movie is going to teach what the matrix wished it could teach. This movie is going to teach what the Truman Show tried to teach. This movie is going to go for an experience where you realize that you can't mess it up, that everything you think you did wrong and everything you think you did right was not it. It's going to teach you that there's a tremendous, transcendent experience available this very instant that will free your mind from everything that it ever believed and considered before. That's how deep we're going today. That's what this is about. This is about releasing the world. This is not about trying to make a better world. This is about realizing that the world was made by the ego and you have to let go of the ego in its world to go to spirit. This is real basic and simple. I think today's lesson is the most basic teaching lesson that there is. And I remember, I just reviewed the movie last night and I just was like, by the end of this movie I was so transported that all I know is what was left of David and the body was a bunch of streaming tears rolling and rolling and rolling down the cheeks because that's where this movie is going today. I was just left crying, crying in gratitude that it's that simple. It's not complicated at all. The truth is simple. The truth is very, very simple. So in this movie we're going to say, as I said, we're going to see children that seem to grow up in India. Starting off in the slums, they will actually, after their mother is killed during a riot, they will do the best they can to survive and they will actually at some point find themselves at the Taj Mahal. Imagine starting off in the slums and they find themselves at the Taj Mahal and then it goes on deeper and deeper with slumlord, with gangster, with seeking a relationship. I think this movie is, I would say this movie is kind of like a soulmate love story that blows past that concept and goes all the way to God. We know soulmates are part of a destiny and we know this very helpful teaching device, but this movie is going to blow past even the soulmate concept and it's going to end up in a dance. It's going to end up in the divine dance, which is so far beyond even soulmates. So if some of you have been yearning for your soulmate, Jesus is like, good, I'll let you see a glimpse of that in this movie and then we're going back to heaven. We're going to a place which is pure spirit and there are no soulmates in heaven because there aren't separate souls. It's just pure oneness, pure love, pure abstract light. We're going to go right into the concept of a, like a very mystical soulmate connection and then we're going to blow past that and go right to the light. That's why I was crying at the end of the movie. I was like, oh my God, I could just hushed. I was hushed in silence. Just let the tears roll, you know, that's all it is. Let the credits roll and let the tears roll. So sit back. We're probably going to be here for a while, but sit back and let yourself be taken into one of the masterpiece movies that Jesus is using now to really take us into a direct experience. That's what we want. We've always wanted a direct experience. We don't want concepts. And let yourself be taken in by a masterful movie, a masterful teaching device. I think back of, when I think of the great Indian traditions, has anybody seen Gandhi? Did you see the movie Gandhi? Richard Attenborough? Gandhi? Didn't that move you? That moved me. That changed my life. That changed the direction of my life when I saw Gandhi. I was like, oh my God. Even Einstein said, scarcely in generations to come will anyone ever believe that a man walked in flesh and blood like Gandhi? That was like an oh my God movie. And if you like Gandhi, hold on to your hat because Jesus is cranking it up beyond non-violence. He's going for transcendence of time and space. He's going beyond bodies today. He's going beyond everything that we've ever learned in history. And he's saying, come to me. I'm calling you out of the world. So you can tell I'm a little fired up today. I hope you will feel it like I feel it because I've been lit up by this movie. And I think just let the movie take you. Let Jesus take you. Watch how everything comes together. Every single scene, every single flashback leads to one moment where you feel God's love. And that's all we've ever prayed for is to know God's love. So enjoy the movie. I'll pop in from time to time.


Huge announcement heading into this Ravens and Browns game concerning the Sean Watson Of course, it was speculated that all is the Sean Watson gonna play he's been limited all week He didn't do much in practice this week, but he should still play I expected him to play a lot of us expected him to play, but there was some people saying I Ain't looking so good, but now justina Anderson. She confirmed it.  So it's done Entering the game versus the Ravens that Browns quarterback the Sean Watson is not Playing not playing and I know there's gonna be a lot of Ravens fans excited about that and I get it But at the same time DTR like Browns love this guy They love their backup quarterback Ravens cannot sleep on this game with or without the Sean Watson Hey Ravens, you just lost to a backup quarterback last week in Garden Manchu So don't make the same mistake twice, but this is still gonna be a tough game in my opinion But now you're going against a rookie a younger quarterback. So that does help out a bit But again, this is the reason DTR is the reason that the Browns traded away Josh Dobbs because they were like look We could do this without Josh. We don't need the veteran back. We love this young rookie man We love this guy. So we're gonna keep him on a team instead of dogs You can go over there to Arizona go do your thing over there and they've continued to express calm ever since they saw him in the Preseason they were like, oh, okay. Wait a minute now. We might just have something and again We know it was the preseason, but like always say it starts somewhere it starts somewhere. So now Browns get to really see how much their trust will benefit them or not benefit them in this upcoming game against the Baltimore Ravens, but again Ravens they can't sleep Cannot sleep on this one at all this game will still be intense in my opinion and again with him being a rookie and What I think is with him being a rookie just like we talked about with Gardner men's shoe Like look both of these guys know their place already both of these guys know where they stay in Gardner men's shoe Know that he is the backup for the Colts DTR. He knows that he is the backup for the Browns So they are liable to take more chances. They liable to take more shots They liable to play less careful with the ball.  They still got to bring it They still better be all over this rookie because this changes a lot But it doesn't change the main focus that the Ravens need to be on point in this game big time


Team keep it clean. What's going on the same grave and here with another video and Another episode of NFL questions from subscribers, and I'm not gonna take much of your time because I know some of y'all watching that Rams and Saints game Order Broncos and the Raiders fighting like they always do but anyway, let me get straight into it This question was from my boy blueboats blue broski peep Appreciate you to he been subscribing supporting for a very long time now But his question was if the Vikings make the playoffs so meaning if they do have even more success this year Which it looks like they're well on their way to doing if they make the playoffs who? Who will be their starting quarterback next year?  Who's gonna be traded and so on and so forth and we kind of touched on this before But we didn't touch on it that much, but anyway, he asked the question So let's answer now before we answer. Let me introduce myself me. I'm engraving vids. Okay. A lot of y'all came through I thought mostly I'll be watching the game Maybe y'all watching the game and watching this at the same time or watching the game and listen to this in the background or Listen to this in the background and watching the game. Whatever you're doing. I appreciate y'all for being here, but anyway Me I'm engraving vids and this is my YouTube channel engraving vids and I'm a Ravens fan And even though I'm a Ravens fan on his YouTube channel. We just talk about football period So if you're Ravens fan if you are Vikings fan if you are Steelers or Packers fan If you're just a fan of football make sure you subscribe to the YouTube channel turn notifications on and like my guy said My guy Ryan mallet like he says every single video Make sure you leave a like on a video because it is completely free so Getting into this Great question to great question. Now Who do they keep? Who do they release? Who will be the backup? Who will be the starter? Now this is a tricky one because you got guys you have you don't just have three quarterbacks You have three quality quarterbacks You got a teddy bridge water. He showed you what he can do He showed you at the first year You got a Sam Bradford. He showed you what he can do He showed you that his first couple years You got case Kingdom right now. He is showing you what he can do He's showing you what he can do Well, there it goes right there They be said the Vikings didn't pick up bridge waters fifth year option So I believe what this is bridge waters. What is this his third year, right? This is third year. I believe so, right? So that will make last year his last year. So I think Appreciate that JB smooth. I think right now They still keep all three I Say they keep all three and if case Kingdom is to make the playoffs Which they will So that division is what they got Packers Packers are done No, and Rogers Packers are done and some people in the comment section like to say oh One one man can't make the football team one man doesn't have that great of an impact on the football team Um, yes see and Rogers. Yes. He certainly does he impacts the offense and the defense Offense for obvious reasons but defense for what should be obvious reasons too because that offense can't move it That makes the defense have to be on the field longer and the defense is already bad So that makes the defense even worse with them with the offense not being able to move the ball so And they got the bears the lions and the bike. I mean bears lions and Packers are in a division so That's that division is a wrap already Vikings already got it. So I say I think they're gonna keep all three. I think they're gonna keep all three One reason they got I think they're gonna keep all three is because you got case Kingdom He's playing some great football right now great football. He is exceeding expectations by far Nobody expected case Kingdom to do this. Nobody and if you said you do and if you said you did you're lying I know you lie But case Kingdom is playing great. Nobody expecting him to do this now Teddy Bridgewater. They know how he can play They know he can be a great player too. They know Sam Bradford Sam Bradford. He can be nice He's like I always say about him. He's a streaky player when he's playing good He'll keep playing good, but when he starts playing bad, he will keep playing bad He plays in streaks. He can't turn it off and turn it on that quick. He can't do that. He plays in streaks So if if they do make the playoffs That's so tricky It's so tricky It is so tricky. I still think they keep off you I think anybody gets released or traded or anything. I think they keep all three because of the unknown That unknown being Sam Bradford. He got an injury history Nice quarterback, but he got an injury. Look at that. Shout out to Juan Lopez, right when I said that his comment had popped up He said Bradford injury prone, but yeah Bradford got an injury history quality quarterback injury history Teddy Bridgewater While he doesn't have such a big injury history. Well, actually he does. I think he got injured like in college or something Or maybe was it or was it high school? So I think he actually does have a little injury history, but Based on just NFL loan He doesn't necessarily have an injury history, but the injuries that he sustained was were huge But he's back down. He's healthy But still there's that What what would happen if we got rid of one guy and then One of the guys that we keep gets hurt case Kingdom. No injury history. Well, that's because he hasn't been a starter So he hasn't really been in games to get injured, but So he has that going for him He doesn't have injury history and he also has that he's been playing very well for the Vikings this year So now that I think If he continued, I Think you would remain the starter because especially if he's doing this for you right now and Then what what if they get to the playoffs and make some noise in the playoffs with case Kingdom? That makes this situation even trickier and it's a great situation of being it's a great problem to have Oh, man, we just have three three quality quarterbacks that can all be starters on our team. What a problem to have What a great problem to have But if case Kingdom is your hot guy if that's the guy who's winning for you That's the guy who's making your team have success. You got to stick with him. You got to stick with him You got to stick with him What do I say why say a good idea still is should pick up any of them for a backup a lot of teams We'll pick up any of them for a backup a lot of teams But I think that I think they keep all three and If my boy JB smooth is accurate. He said they didn't pick up Bridgewater's fourth I mean his fifth-year option So if they didn't do that then that means they don't they they will probably be done with him So he would be gone after the next year But he would be trade bait at that point. He would be trade bait So I think with them not picking up Teddy Bridgewater waters fifth-year option that makes him trade bait So that would be the odd man now if they were to get rid of him if they were to get rid of one of them I think it would be Teddy B because they haven't They haven't had him for the past two years. So they know what life is like without Teddy B They love them, but they know what life is like without Teddy B so I Think that makes it easier for them to move on from him if they were to do that So they could trade him out. I think if they did trade him, I think it'll be for like Probably like a fourth round pick maybe third or fourth round pick. I know he was a oh, this is Bridgewater's fourth year. Oh, okay So next he'll be his fifth year. So then he will be a free agent. Well, that makes some that makes some That make that makes things more interesting See, I wasn't sure if I thought this was Bridgewater's fourth I mean third year, but this is his for you sure is his fourth year Quality control. Is that right? I know you're Vikings fan. Oh Who be said this is Bridgewater's last year? No care Well, if that's so then that changes the answer then I didn't even realize that my fault See, that's why I love doing these live streams because if I'm wrong about something if I'm dead wrong about something Y'all can let me know and I appreciate that huge. Thank you. Thank you So with so okay that there goes your answer right there then Bridgewater's out Bridgewater's out so That's it That's it Bridgewater's out no competition case Keenum and what's his name case Keenum and uh Sam Bradford That's it. Oh a tight drinker said Teddy can't throw a deep good enough He do I he did struggle a little bit with the deep pass, but for the most part it was all right He's decent though Teddy, please Teddy Bridgewater did his thing man. I like watching him. I like watching these games. So anyway Carter said I don't think you can say Bridgewater's injury prone because of his recent injury because that hit was nasty Yeah, yeah, yeah, he um, that's why I say I didn't I didn't say he's injury from I thought maybe before Like in high school or college or something maybe but NFL wise I wouldn't say he's injury prone just the injury that he had was just a big one It was a big injury SB mean Super Bowl Donovan SB stands for Super Bowl Quality control said he can throw deep just not as accurately. Okay, I appreciate that and I trust you cuz I know you watch your boys all the time So all right So this was a good question blue Broski and I actually I love questions where I can learn from them, too I can learn from the answers I can learn from you guys, too That came through in the comment section because I thought this was Bridgewater's 30 year, but y'all saying this is his fourth year So appreciate y'all man. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you And JB say NFL experience in Times Square is a great experience if y'all are big football fans This is the right place for y'all up in New York Okay, appreciate that Packers vs Steelers prediction While I'll I'll be rooting for the Packers, but I think Packers have no chance. I think Steelers are gonna blow him out of the water It's right in this game shouldn't even be close It might be because the Steelers do what the Ravens do enough times and Steelers will play down to the competition, but Still isn't get it. I'm sure anyway appreciate y'all. Thank you blue broski for asking this question I wish blue broski could have been in here with us, but he not yet trap game you right one perfect Perfect way to describe it. Anyway, appreciate y'all man. Thank you for coming through Make sure you subscribe to the YouTube channel if you haven't already turn your notifications on if you haven't already And since y'all came through we might do some more questions from subscribers until the end of this Rams in Saints game. Thank you. Make sure you leave a like on a video if you haven't done so good like my guy Ryan Madison is completely free. Thank you, and I'm out