tv Technology Policy Institute- Internet of Things CSPAN November 25, 2017 10:40pm-11:37pm EST
hearings on c-span and c-span3, live at c-span.org, or with the free c-span radio app. announcer: next, a discussion on the internet of things and how to protect consumers. we'll hear from verizon's public-policy vice president, along with other tech company officials andd california congressman darrell issa. from the technology policy institute in aspen, colorado, this is just under an hour. >> we will get started well the coffee corner sorts itself out. this panel is on the internet of things. the internet of things is a wide-ranging term generally describing computing devices or machines connected to the internet and possibly to each other. some are household products. i'm slowly connecting all my lights to alexa. you have to do new things about worrying about your light bulbs updating your firmware which
they have never had to do before. my wife is not happy with this, but i keep telling her it is getting better and better. before you know it, turning on the lights of these easy as flipping a switch. [laughter] household items are probably the least important part. enterprise in industrial uses have the potential to radically allocate resources more efficiently. there are two principal challenges we are all talking about. the first is the network. what kind of infrastructure do we need to facilitate a robust iot? second, had a we secure the network? it is one thing for terrorists to know i need more ice cream. it is another when you talk about yourself driving car or the electrical grid. we have a great panel today and we will go to discussion. the global innovation and r&d consortium of the cable
industry. he guided u.s. wireless broadband policy is chief data officer. he shakes to mitigation policy at the white house office of management and budget. ashley dermer, senior vice president for the legato networks. she is responsible for promoting the company's vision to provide connection ration conductivity. next generation conductivity is iot. she is a former capitol hill staffer there worked with chris dodd in the election of barack obama. jerry faulhaber. he previously served as chief economist at the fcc. his current research includes wireless markets, public broadband policy in markets,
public safety radio, file sharing, music copyright, net neutrality and iot security. the honorable terrell issa represents california's 49th district, kcet has held since two of one. these on the house judiciary committee where he served on a subcommittee for intellectual property and the internet, along with democratic congresswoman suzan delbene. he speaks to these issues not just as a representative of his district, but as a practitioner. he holds 37 patents, found that an electronics company and also served as chairman of the consumer electronics association. david young is vice president for public policy at verizon where he identifies and assesses merging issues, developing corporate issues and assessing key technology instrumentation industry trends.
he has practical experience in today's ectopic -- today's topic. he worked on data architecture and audio-video compression. he's a member of the ieee to mitigation society. yes, i did a debate in high school. i can talk a lot faster than that if you want me to. let's get started. a brief, quick definition of iot. rob, maybe you can expand on that a little bit. with we mean when we talk about the internet of things? thank you having me. >> it's a pleasure to be here with the congressman and his team of colleagues. thank you for scheduling this power before the only -- the unique alignment of space and time that makes iot seem like miniature. i do have a quibble a little bit with the agenda. you put iot after ai. i think all the devices that we
call iot are actually in input to the applications that we think about only think about ai. in that term i mean in the narrow definition, not the generalized super intelligence and will one day rule us all. the more narrow verticals of applications and the transportation sector and health care and a number of other sectors of the economy. the easy answer is iot is everything connected. we can break that down into smaller and smaller categories. things like enterprise versus consumer. maybe just to set the stage a little bit, is useful to talk about some aspects of why it is interesting. it is growing a lot. that's a big reason we are talking about it. you look at analysts forecast coming out analysts are never wrong. the forecast is at least two times growth of the next five
years. it is probably more than that. that growth -- estimates differ on where we are starting from. by some counts we're at several billion already. others have said 10 billion to 15 billion. there is a lot. it is poised to grow more. there is some skepticism around that. i think it is some organic trends that are driving things in the direction of everything that could be connected eventually becoming connected. driving down the cost and upping the capability of devices generating a lot more things that produce data. we have advances and analytics to make use of that data. on the network we have ipv6, and then were best bandwidth making room for connected devices. i think there is something -- science pointing in the
direction of growth. we just heard a lot about that in the prior panel in terms of the applications they can make use of this data. saving lives, increasing productivity. i think when you start to get into, is this all hype? what is the next later below all these high-level trends? there are challenges. things are a little more complicated than it might appear at first. some of the challenges our technology-based. the big one is power and power consumption. we think about billions of devices out there, a good number of them are not going to be plugged into the grid all the time. they will need battery power of some sort, or the ability to generate their own power. there is some trade-off with their ability to communicate and her energy consumption. that will drive certain considerations in terms of the architecture of iot going forward. potential trade-offs of how you program these devices. they will be out in the wild for 5-10 years. have you keep them updated?
there are challenges in the market. interoperability is one of the things we see right now. not all devices can talk to each other. proprietary ecosystems you need to take as a consumer before you can take advantage of some of these technological advances. there are issues of trust, consumer trust. there are other challenges. i put two out the most relevant for this room because i think of them as horizontal challenges that are enablers of not of iot and that is spectrum insecurity. as you have the ilion's more devices coming online, we need wireless resources to make sure they can perform their function. and we need to make sure that as the number of devices grow, we don't see the number of attacks. i was that ask you a question but your you have something to say about it. >> i thought i would maybe jump
in here. rob knows this stuff better than i do. i'm kind of at the opposite end of the spectrum. some months ago he said how would you like to give a paper on cyber security and the internet of things? i don't know a damn thing about that. i did even have an internet of things in my house. i don't have a smart refrigerator. wait a minute, i do have a smart tv. most of us have smart tv's. i had a connect this to my wi-fi. yep, it's on the internet and it is a thing. ok, i don't to worry about it too much. then i was recently that said it is a samsung. samsung to these have this thing where you can gesture at it. you can speak to it. it will follow your commands. i then read it also sense that to a third-party. anything that it hears is sent to a third party for analysis.
ok. now the next step is it also has a camera so you can gesture to it. so you don't have to use your remote. it also sense that to a third-party. ok, now here is the kicker. the tv is in our bedroom. ok. so all of a sudden the internet of things -- [laughter] the internet of things kind of hit home as you might suspect. what happens is occasionally i wife and i have to move the tv out of the bedroom. that is what the internet of things is. that is the other side of what rob was discussing. that is what it means in reality. >> we already know this from you tube. [laughter] it is on youtube, right?
>> that is all i wanted to say. scott: privacy and security related privacy are a big deal. that also raises questions. the best part of what this infrastructure is all about. apparently we need lots of bandwidth for video streaming from jerry's house. >> that is specifically designed for things. one of the things that makes
connecting these devices, for some home broadband will be perfectly adequate, but for others you will wanted to work anywhere you go, so you will want a widely deployed technology, like m1 lte, specifically designed for internet of things. one of the things that makes it well-suited for connecting devices as it allows for low-power operations. it also does not deliver the high bandwidth. for some applications that is not the most important thing. for ultra ubiquitous conductivity, you may look to satellite area. >> when we think about what you need really, the networks of the
future are going to require each of those and a mix of those in order to provide and serve the diversity of applications that the iot will result in. we are focused on the enterprise side of the equation, which will require all for reliability, and ubiquitous coverage, which satellite does provide. we are also strong believers, as david mentioned, in being tech neutral. historically, your satellite company your cell phone company, wi-fi, all different applications can benefit from a mix of those technologies. as far as the industrial
internet of things, they will require the satellites for coverage for pervasive connectivity, and then for the ground assistance in the lower bandwidth applications. >> let's talk about the policy aspect of it. what are you see as the biggest policy -- what do you see is the biggest policy impediments to developing an internet of things, and what is the role of congress, and how does your caucus work? as far as policy, we have to unwind the bad decisions of past policymakers. that is not intended to be a joke, that is very, very sincere. if you look at how we validated spectrum, how we sold it, how we made decisions -- i will not name names -- in the beginning, there were discussions about how to we come up with wi-fi, which
is today the clear backbone of so many internet of things, including the switches your wife continues to be confronted with. i should not say useless, because baby monitors were considered -- yes, the baby will cry and you will be hearing it in the next room on this low-power device. it was replacement for the other junk stuff, because we have cb and all of these others. but you look at this history, and say ok, if you were going to start again, and if i could put everybody in this room with their not so hidden agendas in a room and said ok, what works for the people who are not in the room, which is your wife, the consumer, and say, ok, what do we need to do?
recognize the technology of today is no longer bandwidth can find, meaning the idea of i make a product and it can do x amount of bandwidth with an antenna, that is very passe. there are broadband products that can listen before talking, operate in very diverse ways with very different power consumptions, that means you can have devices that are much better than they once were, except, of course, as where do you see the newest wi-fi a mesh network that is somewhat intelligent and covers all of the available bands and uses a third band so does not trying to make a decision about what you are doing on a band that was, in fact, a junk band, but one that troubles further than the cells, so that when the cells to not talk to each other, the devices
in the mesh network can. those are succeeding in spite of history, if you will. let me go through two things. one, i talked to people and promised i would comment on the shovel being an artificial intelligent device, along with the horse. the switch in your system is, in many ways, a shovel, because you can push on the button and it turns on and off. it is the horse, because it is a little smarter when you hook it to your iphone, and even a little smarter, well-trained, maybe a well-trained dog when you tell alexa that you want to turn the lights on at 50% on red if you have that feature. we are not yet talking about artificial intelligence, where artificial intelligence is clearly that next step as it
continues to think, learn, and get smarter than anyone director of it. all of it will be necessary, and none of it necessarily needs government involvement, which is a good thing. but let me bring you back to two closing items. when i was a young, young, young lad, three things came to our house. three men came to our house. there was a postman, a milkman, and a bread man. the milkman and the bread man are gone today, even now amazon has sort of replaced it for both. one time, the government made the decision that there is a universal delivery obligation -- in other words, there was a service that was there, the service was free, even if you paid for usage, and we made sure it had every point on the
planet. when the government is trying to decide about this essential news service, have we fallen short in three areas? one, 100% coverage of our entire country, even if it is inconvenient -- which the post office does. two, real standards set for truly universal low-power. and obviously, the question of proprietary high power, the classic license space. that is where we see the question of are we there? have we really don't that? and then we get a new cyber -- into cyber and the questions of security. we will all have to work on it, and the government does not have answers and that it is the private sector.
but if you go back to -- not the shovel -- but the milkman, mailman, bright guy -- bread guy, and ask is there one universal guarantee to every point in america, and if not, is that the government's primary role? ensuring universal access, which is not done just by licensing space? it has to be done by initiatives beyond that. >> you are speaking about institutions that do and do not exist for host -- iot and iot security. how does this play into that? i can talk about online do not policy, but nobody's going to count on a congressman to do that.
department of homeland security saying one of the problems and how do we fix them? it was basically, the technical aspects of how to protect against the internet of things cyber security. the most recent thing i heard was from cablelabs that was quite good, there is simple stuff. it is also focused on consumer goods, there are lots of other internet of things that are commercial. use the best current software, put security on the design face. if we designed the internet like
that we would have a different story. automated secure updates. vulnerability management. configuration, all this kind of stuff, technical stuff. i thought, thank god some of the ulster this. but the big problem is how do we get the stuff in place? there is the institutional issue. have, you have to think about what this industry looks like because those are the people that will do the security. we have hundreds of manufacturers making little computers that go on refrigerators. most of them aren't in the united states. they have to be part of the story. dozens of sellers who are selling refrigerators, alarm systems, there are a whole bunch of different industries. millions of consumers, most of
whom do not know they have a computer. at least with people who have pcs, you know you should download and antivirus think. with a smart refrigerator, you do not know that. you do not care. what makes this even worse is that the real danger is not that you're going to put something in your refrigerator and someone will forward how often you open the door, the real problem is attacks on other people. if you are one of the people who launched it, you do not know it, and the damage is done through you. how do you fix that? this is an industry where you need to establish standards throughout the vertical chain. you need customers to be involved.
that is what you need. there are a couple of conclusions about this. >> to add another question to that, many years ago i was on and academies panel looking at software liability. it always kept coming back to a question of connectivity versus reliability. is there a trade-off here, the device can be -- the more connected a device is, the less secure it is, or is that a false trade-off. a report came out that included cyber security, maybe you can start off by answering that. then i want to hear from the network people and how they view that. >> in terms of your question, if you think about it narrowly,
perhaps the answer is yes. a more open iot at the device level would be open to reductions in security area. i do not really think the level that is important to consumers there is that trade-off. to provide an example, a light bulb in your house does not need to be talking to the entire internet. it might be spending sending sam, but it can talk to your home hub, a gateway in your house that has an appropriate firewall and in tales no reduction in utility for that label. we think not about just devices, but systems and connectivity.
how is connectivity growing in recent history, and much further back than that? to the extent iot is going to be growing, it will be because there is value in devices and systems being connected, in a smart way. of the very, very highest level, does it make sense in an industry to design the devices to be able to go through a hub or something that has more control? is a cheaper to build something that can connect to anything? >> cheaper can be a problem in the iot space. you can have device to device, device to hub, device to hub, cloud to cloud. the trade-off between security and cheapness, as you put it, i think there is a way to bridge that gap.
we get a little bit to be institutions question jerry was outlining, and spoke to the congressman in terms of developing standards and making it easy for new suppliers of these devices to build to those standards, and allowing consumers the ease of connectivity that comes from a common platform. so you have industry coming together, writing a standard, making that available broadly. you get past the problem of the small iot manufacturer with five people and their company trying to stand of a product and not thinking about security. they can easily adopt the industry standard as the base code for their device, get it out quickly, and it is secure. >> we actually don't think connectivity and security are mutually exclusive and anyway. there is such a diverse range of applications and products, and the iot system itself -- you have the architecture, the
application on the other end. we like to think about it as each layer of a stack, essentially. they will all require a different kind of look at what security requirements are necessary. we do not think they are all created equal, all applications are created equal, and should be electric grids have the same type of security requirements as my young daughters electric toothbrush that connects to my phone? probably not. as an industry, what we are looking at is what type of security requirements and best practices do we need to implement at the device level or the design level to ensure that each application has the security requirements that it needs to meet a consumer's expectations? we also believe in consumer education, data is really what is becoming extremely important here in terms of enterprise,
industrial entities taking the connectivity to the next level. what can we do with that data and improving our operations and maintenance? making sure the consumers understand what type of data is being collected is extremely important as well. >> you asked about the hub versus the directly connected devices. having a hub certainly can be advantageous, particularly for low cost consumer-oriented devices that are operating in the home, but that just moves the security point to the hub, which is connected to the internet. we still have the same security issues, but now it is hopefully being taken care of by a man who understands that space and has the resources to make sure it is done properly. the good news is that most of the tools are already available to produce the secure internet of things, whether you are
talking about digital certificate that will authenticate devices and allow them to be managed securely, updated securely, encryption over the network that will ensure the integrity of the data flows, all of these tools are available. the problem is not everybody either knows they are available or chooses to use them. even worse, there are some really basic practices that are often ignored, like creating an internet of things device that has a default password that is published. so it is easily accessed by anybody who wants to go in and change the settings. so the tools are available, it is just a matter of producing the education of the consumer level and just because the tools are available, i have not heard about these incentives? >> let's look at the incentives as it is never going to be good enough.
the education is never going to be good enough. so decades ago, i was a young officer training for how we were going to beat the russians in the next war, and there was an interesting difference between how the u.s. went to war and the soviets went to war. we went to war with every single tank, which had a radio and full training on how to command. every private has the same level of training of what would happen if you went to war. the soviet union that used hand signals for the most part, and literally did not put radios in anything except the command vehicles. they put fake antennas on the rest. part of the process was they did not trust their soldiers. skip forward. you are in a battle and are going to have losses. in the case of the soviets, our
goal was to knock out their command and control and the rest of the guys did not know what the hell to do. when we look at these trillions of devices and we know there will be failures, the first question is how do we ensure that failure of one, 100, 1000, 1 million is not the failure of a system? so rather than say we will have better education, change the passwords, put a hub in, the first thing is the system has to be built with an assumption that there will be failure. the assumption that the systems, whether it is the electric grid, the internet, through the denial of service protection, has the ability to protect itself and deal with inevitable losses. and some of those are when electronic systems go haywire. there are some that create their own noise, like this one, and i think you start with that.
the second part, which has a bigger public interest, is the debate that is not settled. i am very personally involved in it, if you will. the former fbi director comey came before congress and swore under oath that he had no ability to get the information he needed from the san bernardino bomber except by forcing apple to create an active remote back door into the probe. that is what the magistrate had ordered, feeling there were sufficient constitutional protections in this order. now, a matter of weeks later, an israeli company, for $1 million, gave him the data he wanted. a few weeks after that, a cambridge professor showed him how he could do exactly what a rube goldberg guy like me said he could do in this argument. we have to have a debate about whether encryptions and
protections are real and unbreakable, because if they are not real and unbreakable, then they will be exploited. if they are real and on people, organizations like the fbi, cia, and others will be constantly disappointed that they cannot get what they desperately wants. this is not a new argument. back in the 90's, quite frankly, we had 128 bit encryption as a cap, annually way we got past that was that microsoft and others began having their software hacked and given away for free all over the world, and it created a pressure because of its failure. we are repeating that right now, just as we did with justin correcting software so it could not be easily copied, or repeating the question of do you have an absolute right, and do we have an obligation to make these things secure, and if so, that inevitably will empower those who use it for nefarious
purposes to be protected. and that goes all the way to the highest levels of governments around the world. >> how does that fit in to your institutional -- >> yeah, let me finish appear. i certainly do not want to get in the way of the eclipse. let me talk about some of the incentive issues with some of the institutions we could set up. one of the problems was there was such a very wide variety of major is him in this game, how are we going to get everybody on board? well, there are two extremes here. one, let's set up volunteer organizations, and we will sell that. all the way to the ftc or somebody, saying we will have regulation. i think there is -- i have identified number of things, one is the volunteer approach. this works well when you have a
small number of firms, all of whom can internalize this, but when you have hundreds of thousands of firms, it becomes very difficult to actually police this. this would work, for example, if you said let's do the equivalent of the good housekeeping seal of approval. that is a totally voluntary thing, and if everyone signed up for it, this would be the solution. i'm not too sure this is the best solution. the second one would be voluntary standards, but with legal enforcement. lawyers would love this because, in fact, product liability becomes a way to enforce it. that works -- the problem of this is enforcement is costly. it may completely miss it, which is to say i have this on my refrigerator. it creates this damage to somebody else, but i do not care about suing. this is perhaps not a good way to do this.
regulatory, this is the third -- regulatory joint efforts with regulatory commissions -- i'm sorry, with the industry. joint effort. an example to this might be epa and energy star, where the appliance people get to put on the energy star thing, but that is done jointly with the epa. fcc, that is it form of joint regulation in the industry. customers are not involved with the problem, and there are some externalities. there is a potential for regulatory -- [coughing] this could work well for iot.
you have to have, if you do full regulation, it is not going to respond to technical change really well. this would be epa fuel efficiency, ok? it can be enforced, but it is slow to change. in the technical field, that is not a good solution. i would tend to go -- excuse me -- with the joint regulatory operation. i think that would be a good solution to come up with. it is enforceable, and change the technology, and it is something i think would work well with iot. it would not be perfect, and we have heard a lot about what happens to the tale of things, and everything you said was excellent. but you need to have some institutional structure around which laws and standards can be
built. it is important to think them through, and think through going totally private versus totally public. >> you asked about incentives, and suggested that there is a lack of incentive. i would push back on that. i think there is no one internet of things. we are talking about a broad spectrum of applications and solutions. if you are a business and you are connecting your fleet of trucks, you have strong incentive to make sure that those systems are secure and will require the supplier that you are working with to ensure that security, and take all the steps that you need because a failure will cost your business either in terms of reputation or actual loss or damages. if you are a city and you are deploying a smart traffic management solution, you have a strong incentive to make sure that does not mess something up.
there are incentives for all sorts of things, but when you start getting down to the security camera for your home that you are buying from a small company, and you as the consumer might not care about a denial of service attack, but others would. so segmenting the use cases and the problems and identifying where perhaps the incentives are weaker might be helpful. but there are also mitigation solutions that can be put into place. ai came before this, and one of the applications of ai could be identifying abnormal communications and traffic patterns. so if a video camera starts engaging in abnormal behavior, the ai in your home router, say hey, you might want to unplug that thing and check the passwords.
i think there are a lot of incentives already in place, but that said -- and then of course, the fcc as a backstop -- if you do fail to properly secured door iot network and consumers data is lost, you are liable to be called in front of the fcc and enter in a loan consent decree. and that is probably the one and that is probably the one issue that i think is least resolved right now and ever security -- in cyber security. the diverse one is my favorite, the michael doherty case, for those who have not heard it or read the book. they could not name best practices, they did not have a standard, and yet they wanted to hold somebody accountable for things which they had not published. and after the fact with into,
and you look and say well, there is where the rub is, i think jerry was very good. the government cannot keep up with best practices, but that means when government enforces or lawyers and force them, they are alluding to the idea that you should have known, and i think that is where a lot of what the internet of things is going to be all about, is industries creating best practices, governments quickly making them known, that they are from a regulatory standpoint a need to know if you are going to manufacture hardware or software for the industry, and then pushing that down. of course, the updating question comes along. where this all the part is when we get back to the consumer. i have a biased because i came out of the consumer electronics industry, where our motto is if they have to read the instructions, you have failed in the product.
i know that is not just for the men in the world. the reality is that if we do our job right, the internet of things will be products which may have to be shutdown when you do something wrong, but will not require the that that is where we have to change the government view, keep the plaintiffs lawyers out of it, particularly -- it is a hybrid of things we have done in the past. is the federal trade commission liable when someone knowingly is deceiving the public? yes.
after something happens you must not have lived up to best practices that i think that is where we will have to change government policy view, keep the plaintiff's lawyers out of it, particularly when we are talking about a product that cable is technology that updates hourly. >> talking about standards and regulation, without naming names, who exactly is not paying attention? not able to go along with what is going on? >> all right. can i name names? [laughter] no, no. the reality, as service providers, we work for the cable
industry. we have an ongoing relationship with the customer and we feel a pretty hefty responsibility to do what we can to protect our customers. that sort of relationship is uniform across the i.t. ecosystem. there are those that want to shift units and there are those who want to have an ongoing relationship with the consumer. it is a challenge. a lot of what has been discussed is exactly the right type of thing. the public comment process takes a year, two years to play that out. that moves too slowly and in addition it's a much more complex problem we are dealing with. i think it really is up to industry to step up and provide the tools the ecosystem needs to
address these issues. and just as a bit of a plug, and as an example for what the industry is doing in this space, cable and verizon are members of the open connectivity foundation. ocfs is 350 or so companies actually riding code. we are not just talking about best practices. we write code that enables security for devices. that allows us to get at the issue of the small guy trying to stand up for product. the solutions are starting to take root. defining success is important to keep in mind. it is tricky. if we go back to the example jerry mentioned, being attacked by bot net, to put the magnitude of that in perspective, security researchers have concluded the
bot net had a steady state usage of 220,000 devices. that sums like a lot until you think of the billions of devices out there. this is less someone percent of the devices on the market today or responsible for major event. we need to because just about what success looks like. we will have security. there are tools in place to make incremental, if not more than that, improvements. >> a different kind of question. setting aside the issues with spectrum -- what are you talking about? [laughter] are certain aspects of setting up the network for this sort of future easier?
and are there also more difficult things like these groups? >> yeah, so we view it as an unbelievable opportunity. i think what the congressman is talking about, how do we undo a lot of these things? we have a significant amount of spectrum that is largely unencumbered right now. that gives us an opportunity to start implementing from the start, the best practices that are already out there and focusing the network on core industrial industries like the utility that is just not quite meeting the needs they have right now as they look to further automating their systems and such. so yes, our story is not new to anyone in this room.
but we are looking at the other side, and really seeing a unique opportunity to deploy greenfield spectrum in a way that needs and uses the best technology that we have and tools that we currently have today. >> we have a little time for questions. >> the answer is 11:43. [laughter] >> as one of the authors on the report on i.t. security. i was really interested in what i read about oh cf, because one of the things that i identify is basically that the iot industry needs something that is the equivalent of the wi-fi lineups, and if you can put pressure on it and define test procedures and all of that and provide expectations a step further. so congratulations, i glad you're doing that. >> we are not quite there yet.
we just started up last year, but it is a forum where these sorts of discussions are happening. the intent is to make it a consumer brand that people can recognize, a certification against it. >> and we should not forget that not that iot has an eight security problems, the internet itself is not very secure. when wi-fi was first developed, it was not at all secure. there is kind of a process that new technologies go through where the big challenge is to make it work, and then you worry about having to make it secure. i think there is a change in that mindset where we will start designing security. >> questions? ok.
well, that seems like a good place to wrap this up. thank you all, and i would like to thank the panel for this great discussion. [applause] now we can all go up there and see nothing, if it all works out, and we will have viewing glasses for you up there. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] announcer: a conversation with eitten, who talks about how your zip code is more important than your genetic code in determining how long you will live. >> i went to medical school at johns hopkins, and for those of
you who may not know, johns hopkins is located in east baltimore, which is one of the worst slums in america, and it was a real shock to me, because i had grown up in canada, and canada had a deep level of investment in its people universal health care,, universal childcare, paid sick leave, vacations, investments in public art and infrastructure. when i got to east baltimore and i saw the conditions, i was quite shocked. it sort of triggered this thinking in my head that in the u.s., does where you live ultimately shape your health more than any of your genetic factors? in, when iested graduated medical school and went through a whole bunch of studies and policies, i got interested in how do you illustrate these differences between neighborhoods, and the
impacts, the ultimate, cumulative impacts on people's health? announcer: you can watch the rest of that conversation at the computer history museum in california today at 6:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. announcer: c-span student cam video documentary cup edition is underway, and students across the country are at work, sharing their experiences with us through twitter. ♪ announcer: it's not too late to enter. our deadline is january 18, 2018. asking students to choose a position of the u.s. constitution and create a video illustrating why it is important to you. our constitution is open to all middle school and high school students, grades six through 12. $100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. the grand prize of $5,000 will
go to the student or team with the best overall injury. for more information, go to our website, studentcam.org. ♪ announcer: ahead of the thanksgiving holiday, housing and urban development secretary ben carson stopped by a habitat for humanity building site to assist with other volunteers. at one point, secretary carson also gave brief remarks. this is about 10 minutes. >> good morning. i'm corinne mcintosh douglas, chairman of the board of habitat for humanity of washington, d.c., or d.c. habitat. we are pleased you can join us to see what goes on behind the scenes at d.c. habitat, where we have been bung