Two-dozen congressional staffers joined academic and Silicon Valley experts at Stanford’s inaugural cybersecurity boot camp to discuss ways to protect the government, the public and industry from cyber attacks, network crimes and breaches of personal privacy.

The staffers listened to presentations from 25 business and technology leaders, as well as experts in privacy, civil liberties and intelligence during the three-day boot camp. They also took part in a role-playing exercise dealing with a cyber crisis, posing as staffers from the White House, Homeland Security, the State and Defense departments, as well as private enterprise.

The idea behind the workshop was to give Capitol Hill staffers the knowledge and contacts that will help them better craft legislation and policies on cybersecurity.

“We’re 3,000 miles away from Washington and we’re at ground zero for the tech revolution,” said CISAC Co-Director Amy Zegart. She is also the Davies Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, which co-sponsored the boot camp that that ran from Aug. 18-20.

“The boot camp is an important early step in what we envision to be a continuing, leading and lasting cyber program,” said Zegart, co-convener with Herbert Lin, chief scientist at the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council of the National Academies, who joins Stanford in January as a senior scholar for cyber research and policy at CISAC and research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Zegart had three goals for the boot camp. One was to bring together computer and social scientists across campus and across the country “to broaden and deepen our cutting-edge scholarship.”

Then, from the networking that naturally took place, Zegart hopes to create a Track II cybersecurity council that will convene regularly with leaders from the U.S. government, scholars and key stakeholders from the private industry.

“And finally, we want enhanced education programs not only for students here at Stanford, but key stakeholders for cybersecurity policy,” she said.

The presentations were videotaped and will be packaged and used for educational purposes at Stanford and eventually be made public online.

Some of the staffers said the boot camp exceeded their expectations and they were grateful for the jam-packed, 72-hour crash course in all things cyber.

“What Stanford has done really successfully here is they brought together people from D.C. who wouldn’t necessarily talk to each other, from different committees, from different sides of the aisle,” said Jamil Jaffer, Republican chief counsel and senior advisor to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. “Then from the valley community they brought lawyers, educators and technologists – you name it – from across the spectrum in a way that I’ve never seen before.”

He said he hoped CISAC and the Hoover Institution, which co-sponsored the Stanford Congressional Cyber Boot Camp, would convene the next boot camp with the New York business community as well.

“I think there’s a real opportunity to build bridges between these three major cities; I think we need to have these conversations together,” he said.

Staffers also exchanged views about the wide gap between the government and Silicon Valley tech companies with regard to privacy when they met with senior security chiefs at Google during a visit to the nearby Google X campus.

And there were plenty of lively debates about Internet security vs. privacy and whether the government should step in to police public networks.

Benjamin Wittes of Brookings and Hoover faced off with Jennifer Granick, director of Civil Liberties at the Stanford Center for Internet and Society at the Law School.

“Liberty is a feature of security – and security is a feature of liberty,” Wittes said. “So the urge to think that any security measure is going to negatively impact your liberty, or conversely that anything that augments online liberty is going to have negative implications on security is a very easy, and I would say, very lazy instinct.”

Granick countered by saying most professionals in Silicon Valley do not trust the government to police the Internet without secret hacks. For example, documents leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden indicated the National Security Agency tapped into fiber optic cables transmitting data for Yahoo and Google.

“Last night you heard Eric Schmidt say that the NSA had hacked Google,” she said, referring to a keynote dinner conversation between the Google chairman and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a professor at Stanford's Graduate School of Business and a senior fellow at Hoover and the Freeman Spogli Institute.

The NSA has denied hacking into Google and Yahoo.

“Everyone here in Silicon Valley agrees with what he says,” she said. “Don’t fool yourself that he’s just saying that because that’s just Google marketing. Everybody at Twitter believes it; everybody at Facebook believes it. I am embedded in the privacy world and we’re all worried about consumer privacy and what these companies are doing with this information – but that doesn’t mean we trust the government to protect us.”

Aside from the government trust debate, other big takeaways were that surprisingly little is secure on the Internet and the threat of cyber attacks against the United States is one of the biggest issues facing Washington policymakers today.

They heard a warning in stark and unambiguous language from Jane Holl Lute, president of the Council on CyberSecurity and a consulting professor at CISAC.

"It's no longer possible to ignore this issue," said Lute, who until last year was deputy secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, where she was responsible for the day-to-day management of the department's efforts to prevent terrorism and enhance security. "Life online is fundamentally unsafe.”

She emphasized that the Internet is about "the power to connect, not to protect" and stressed the importance of practicing "cyber hygiene" to reduce problems. This includes monitoring the hardware and software running on a network, limiting administrative permissions, and real-time patching and monitoring of system vulnerabilities.

If organizations would just follow these steps, she said, 80 to 90 percent of cyber attacks would be prevented.

"We know a lot, but we're just not doing it,” she said.

Lute emphasized that today's world has an "existential reliance" on the Internet – more than 3 billion people in the world, including 80 percent of North Americans, have access to the Internet. All of this dependence comes against the reality that many companies and sites do not carry out basic hygiene to protect their networks.

The U.S. Senate and House staffers attending the boot camp come from both political parties and work on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Homeland Security, Appropriations, Judiciary, Energy and Commerce committees. The group also includes staffers working with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Ed Markey, D-Mass., among others.

Senior executives from Microsoft, Visa, Palantir, Palo Alto Networks and U.S. Venture Partners had a robust discussion about how their companies battle cyber crime and share network data.

Ellen Richey, global head of enterprise risk for Visa, talked about her frustration with the international organized crime rings that attack financial institutions and credit cards companies.

“And they’re using that money to finance other types of illicit activities, such as human trafficking, drugs and terrorism, yet their governments don’ t go after them, or if they do go after them, they are released due to corruption in the courts,” Richey said.

She said Visa believes that at the end of the day, it’s not possible to adopt measures that are going to adequately protect against the growing threat of cyber crimes.

“So we believe that the ultimate answer for us is to get vulnerable data out of their hands,” Richey said. “You’ve got to shrink the battlefield.”

Facebook CSO Joe Sullivan addresses the boot camp, Aug. 20, 2014.

And the staffers heard a plea by Joe Sullivan, chief security officer at Facebook, to join them in the valley’s quest for better network security.

“The pace that we work at here in Silicon Valley is amazing. It’s exciting and fun to be a part of – but it’s really scary, too,” said Sullivan, a former federal prosecutor devoted to high-tech crime. “There are challenges that we have to deal with every day and we have to have really large and nimble security teams that are thinking about the next big thing before it launches.

“The question is: are government agencies thinking about these issues? Far too often – that is not the case. Hopefully when you go back to Washington you think about how we engage companies, how we engage with government agencies, think about the roles that we all play.”

Sullivan talked about Facebook’s “white hat” program, in which the social network invites users to find security vulnerabilities and report them for a bounty.

He said they have spent $3 million in the last three years in payouts to users around the world, such as the young Palestinian man who was able to hack into Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s page to warn him of a security flaw.

“We’ve focused on encryption, we’ve hired a lot of people and we’ve looked at data center traffic and all those things,” Sullivan said. “But one of the areas where I think we’ve tried to be at the forefront is about talking about security in a more open way.”

Sullivan said he believes there’s a “disconnect” when one talks about security between the private and public sectors and consumers.

“I feel like when the government talks about security, they’re talking about surveillance,” Sullivan said. “I think when consumers talk about security, they’re talking about safety.”

The big tech companies – Facebook, Microsoft and Google – must take “full ownership” of network security, though he wishes that were not always the case.

“We honestly don’t count on any government agency anywhere in the world to make the people who use Facebook secure,” he said. “We realize we have to do it on our own. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I would suggest it’s a bad thing. I think we’d all like more help in securing our services.”

For more details about the boot camp speakers and program, visit this website.

Stanford's Condoleeza Rice and Google's Eric Schmidt greet congressional staffers attending boot camp. ©Rod Searcey

Image

I left South Korea in the summer of 1983 to pursue graduate studies in the United States. At the time I had every intention of returning to South Korea with an advanced degree. After three decades, I am still in the United States, teaching at an American, not a Korean, college. Am I a case of "brain drain" for South Korea?

From a conventional human resources perspective, the answer is yes, as South Korea lost the power of one brain that it had trained up through college. However, if we take a new approach that I advocate here, this is not necessarily the case. It can rather be seen as a case of "brain circulation," as I have been engaged in bridging home (South Korea) and host (the United States) countries in academic and policy communities. 

The 21st century is an era of fierce competition for global talent. The competition to attract highly skilled manpower is becoming fiercer and fiercer among countries as well as among corporations. Economic globalization has facilitated the movement of human labor, and the demand for foreign talent is high in most advanced countries, due to their low birth rates and aging populations. This is especially true for Japan and South Korea, which have the most rapidly aging populations and record-low fertility.

Over the past decades, Japan and South Korea have focused on importing unskilled laborers from China and Southeast Asia to fill their labor shortage in so-called "3D" – dirty, dangerous and difficult – industries. Now, competition for skilled labor has become intense in high-tech industries. Many enterprises in Asia as well as in Silicon Valley, where I live, have no choice but to import skilled foreign workers to make up for their human resources shortages. For example, according to 2013 statistics, 18.5 percent of the nearly 720,000 foreign workers in Japan were professional, technical employees, and of the nearly 760,000 foreign workers in South Korea, approximately 12.2 percent were professional, high-level employees.

Although these numbers are not insignificant, Japan and South Korea, with their strong ethnic nationalism, are at a disadvantage in attracting foreign talent compared to immigrant societies such as the United States, Canada and Australia. In 2011, for instance, approximately 65 percent of the college-educated workforce in Silicon Valley in the field of science and engineering were foreign-born immigrants. Not surprisingly, the Global Talent Competitiveness Index released last November by INSEAD, France's world-renowned graduate business school, places Japan and South Korea 21st and 28th, respectively, in the overall rankings of 103 surveyed countries. Moreover, it ranks Japan and South Korea 76th and 66th, respectively, in the "Attract" pillar of the index, which measures the degree of openness to minorities and immigrants.

The results must be disappointing and alarming for both countries and show the need for a new, innovative approach to utilizing global talent. No matter how aggressively Japan and South Korea try to attract foreign talent, they cannot prevail over immigrant countries that are more open to foreigners. Accordingly, we need a fresh approach that pays close attention to social capital, especially skilled workers' role as "international bridges" in today's global economy. The value of global talent lies in individuals' international networks as much as in their skills and experiences.

Indian example

Let's take the case of Indian software engineers, who are in high demand in many advanced countries around the world. According to our study, many of them are willing to work in South Korea largely as a stepping stone for their professional careers. However, most of them intend to leave South Korea after three to five years to seek a position in a better working environment such as Silicon Valley. This is understandable given the social and cultural environment of South Korea, which is not particularly amenable to foreigners.

From a traditional human resources perspective, South Korea loses manpower as soon as those Indian engineers leave the country. However, if they leave with close ties with South Korean society, they could be of considerable benefit to South Korean corporations as transnational bridges with technical cooperation or information sharing from their new host country.

The same is true with foreign students studying in Japan and South Korea. In 2013, the total number of foreign students studying in South Korea neared 90,000, with 88 percent from developing Asian countries such as China, Mongolia, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand. In Japan, the number of foreign students was more than 135,000, a great majority of whom were also from China, Taiwan, Vietnam and Nepal. These students chose Japan and South Korea as destinations in order to learn about the development models of Japan and South Korea. If they found jobs in Japan or South Korea after graduation, they would be valuable human resources there. But even if they return home, they can continue to act as bridges between Japan or South Korea and their home countries in a wide variety of fields. This would be a huge asset for Japan and South Korea.

The diaspora can be useful in the same way. Although not many high-quality workers desire jobs in their homelands, South Korea or Japan, their international networks can be highly beneficial even if they remain overseas. Japan and South Korea should learn from Israel, which has been effectively utilizing the outstanding talent within its diaspora community – without bringing them home – through a program called "Birthright Israel." This program offers steady support to young overseas Jewish adults to stay in Israel for a short time and experience Jewish traditions and culture, thereby helping them establish their identity. Although they might not return to work in Israel, they can nevertheless be expected to act as intermediaries between Israel and the countries in which they reside. 

To succeed in the global competition for talent, Japanese and South Korean corporations and governments must reorient their current policies and strategies to overcome cultural and social disadvantage in foreign talent recruitment. No matter how hard they try to attract foreign talent, they cannot win over immigrant countries that are more receptive to foreigners. Accordingly, they should go beyond trying to bring foreign talent home and must appreciate its potential value as social capital. In particular, they should focus their efforts on establishing transnational bridges that can be beneficial even if skilled foreign labor does not reside inside South Korea or Japan. As my case illustrates, "brain drain" can be converted into "brain circulation." 

This article was originally carried by Nikkei Asian Review on 19 August and reposted with permission.

Economist Yong Suk Lee has been appointed the SK Center Fellow at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), effective Sept. 1, 2014. Lee will join the Korean Studies Program (KSP) at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), led by Gi-Wook Shin, who is the Tong Yang, Korea Foundation and Korea Stanford Alumni Chair of Korean Studies, a senior fellow at FSI, and a professor of sociology, all at Stanford University.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, an "open borders" United States absorbed millions of European immigrants in one of the largest mass migrations ever. New research by Stanford economist Ran Abramitzky challenges the perception that immigrants lagged behind native-born Americans in job pay and career growth.
 

BY CLIFTON B. PARKER

European immigrants to America during the country's largest migration wave in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had earnings comparable to native-born Americans, contrary to the popular perception, according to new Stanford research.

"Our paper challenges conventional wisdom and prior research about immigrant assimilation during this period," said Ran Abramitzky, an associate professor of economics at Stanford, faculty affiliate of The Europe Center and author of the research paper in the Journal of Political Economy.

New research challenges conventional wisdom about immigrant assimilation during the bygone era of open borders and mass migration. Photo Credit: Lewis Hine/Library of Congress

New research challenges conventional wisdom about immigrant assimilation during the bygone era of open borders and mass migration.

Abramitzky and his colleagues found the average immigrant in that period did not face a substantial "earnings penalty" – lower pay than native-born workers – upon their arrival.

"The initial earnings penalty is overstated," said Abramitzky.

He said the conventional view is that the average European immigrants held substantially lower-paying jobs than native-born Americans upon first arrival and caught up with natives' earnings after spending some time in the United States. But that perception does not hold up to the facts, he said.

Abramitzky's co-authors include Leah Platt Boustan from the University of California, Los Angeles, and Katherine Eriksson from California Polytechnic State University.

The researchers examined records on 21,000 natives and immigrants from 16 European countries in U.S. Census Bureau data from 1900 to 1910 to 1920.

"Even when U.S. borders were open, the average immigrant who ended up settling in the United States over the long term held occupations that commanded pay similar to that of U.S. natives upon first arrival," Abramitzky said.

In that bygone era of "open borders," Abramitzky said, native-born Americans were concerned that immigrants were not assimilating properly into society – yet, on the whole, this concern appears to be unfounded. "Such concerns are echoed in today's debate over immigration policy," he added.

At the same time, Abramitzky said that immigrants from poorer countries started out with lower paid occupations relative to natives and did not manage to close this gap over time.

"This pattern casts doubt on the conventional view that, in the past, immigrants who arrived with few skills were able to invest in themselves and succeed in the U.S. economy within a single generation," Abramitzky and his colleagues wrote.

Age of migration

America took in more than 30 million immigrants during the Age of Mass Migration (1850-1913), a period when the country had open borders. By 1910, 22 percent of the U.S. labor force – and 38 percent of workers in non-southern cities – was foreign-born (compared with 17 percent today).

As the research showed, immigrants then were more likely than natives to settle in states with a high-paying mix of occupations. Location choice was an important strategy they used to achieve occupational parity with native-born Americans.

"This Age of Mass Migration not only is of interest in itself, as one of the largest migration waves in modern history, but also is informative about the process of immigrant assimilation in a world without migration restrictions," Abramitzky said.

Over time, many of the immigrants came from the poorer regions of southern and eastern Europe.

Abramitzky pointed out that native-born Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were concerned about poverty in immigrant neighborhoods and low levels of education among children, many of whom left school early to work in industry.

Consequently, American political progressives championed a series of reforms, including U.S. child labor laws and compulsory schooling requirements.

Still, some natives believed that new arrivals would never fit into American society. And so, in 1924, Congress set a strict quota of 150,000 immigrant arrivals per year, with more slots allocated to immigrants from northern and western European countries than those from southern and eastern Europe.

But those early-20th-century fears of unassimilated immigrants were baseless, according to Abramitzky.

"Our results indicate that these concerns were unfounded: The average long-term immigrants in this era arrived with skills similar to those of natives and experienced identical rates of occupational upgrading over their life cycle," he wrote.

How does this lesson apply to today's immigration policy discussion? Should the numbers of immigrants and their countries of origin be limited and those with higher skills be given more entry slots?

Abramitzky said stereotyping immigrants has affected the political nature of the contemporary debate.

"These successful outcomes suggest that migration restrictions are not always necessary to ensure strong migrants' performance in the labor market," he said.

On July 30, 2014, three anxious but very poised high school students from the Sejong Korean Scholars Program (SKSP)—an online course on Korea sponsored by the Stanford Program on International and Cross-Cultural Education (SPICE) and the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center—took the stage to present their final papers to an audience of 25 American and Korean high school teachers and several university professors at a three-day conference on Korea at Stanford University. 

The students—Alex Boylston, a recent graduate of Riverwood International Charter School in Atlanta, GA; Anne Kim, a rising senior at Richard Montgomery High School in Rockville, MD; and Elaine Lee, a rising senior at Los Altos High School in Los Altos, CA—were selected from a class of 26 students, based on the excellence of their academic work and final course papers. 

When asked how he came to choose his topic on Koreans in Japan’s yakuza, Alex Boylston thoughtfully replied that he had thought “outside the box” because he didn’t want his instructor “to have to read 20 essays on the Korean War.” Taking a different tack, Anne Kim turned her personal interest in historical Korean dramas (“sageuk”) into the topic for her final paper, “Let’s Talk Drama: Sageuk as a Reflector and Perpetrator of Societal Change in South Korea.” Closing out the presentations, Elaine Lee stepped up to the podium and discussed the challenges South Korea faces as a global economic power, leaving no doubt she will achieve her goal of participating in the future of U.S.–South Korean relations. All three were honored with an award for excellence, following their presentations.

The SKSP accepts 20-25 exceptional high school students from throughout the United States for each course offering. The course provides students with a broad overview of Korean history and culture as well as U.S.–Korean relations and an opportunity to learn from and interact with top scholars and experts in Korean studies. The SKSP is now accepting applications for its spring 2015 term; www.sejongscholars.org.