10% of firms – and those are the firms that have  the most personal data and intellectual property.

So, you know, mostly big tech  firms, Google, Amazon, Facebook…

Google is actually an interesting  narrative arc because Google really  

invented the business model  of surveillance capitalism.

And that is the business model of essentially  tracking everything you are doing,  

saying online and increasingly offline, and  using it to build a profile of you and then  

selling that information to advertisers who  want to target you down to a microscopic level.

So, think about that now as it moves into  healthcare, into finance, into insurance.

Here is a real-world example that is happening…

Insurance companies are now putting sensors  

in some countries in some markets where  this is legal – sensors in peoples' cars  

or homes –so let's say I'm now driving with my  child in back and I don't stop quickly enough  

at a stop light. That will be tallied –  I might get a black mark on my insurance.

First of all that's I think incredibly creepy but  it also has the effect of completely changing the  

business model from a business model of  the collective, in which it's about risk  

sharing and risk pooling – to separating all  of us - suddenly we are all individual risks,  

and perhaps you and I can be insured but perhaps  there is a pool uninsurable people over here.

It creates this real  

tier system within society where there are  people who can be completely disenfranchised.

First Wall St and then Silicon Valley really  have more power than any other entity.

I see so many similarities between  the way that Wall Street had both  

monetary capture of politics but also cognitive  capture of politics before the financial crisis  

and to a certain extent after and the  way Big Tech has captured the debate now.

With the banks, there is at least some requirement  for how they kind of mark things on the books.

With tech firms - you don't have that  – so it's really a very opaque system

We are not doing transactions in dollars  or sterling, we're doing transactions  

in data –and that is a barter transaction.  It's a very opaque transaction.

So if you think about what Adam Smith would have  said you needed for a properly functioning market.

You need equal access to information, you need  a transparent transaction – so both parties  

need to understand what's being exchanged  – and you need a shared moral framework.

Now you could argue that in the era of big  data – none of those things are in effect.

Think about the most opaque transaction  in the financial crisis – you know,  

the derivatives – weapons of mass financial  destruction - and the kinds of transactions  

that we are doing on an hourly basis  now are just as opaque if not more so.

We don't really understand what is  happening in the algorithmic black box.

One of the reasons that the big tech  companies have been so reluctant  

to police political advertising is they don't  want to open up that algorithmic black box.

One of the possibly elegant answers to  some of the problems we've been talking  

about - from privacy, to competitiveness,  to innovation – would be to create digital  

data banks where companies of all sizes, in  all industries, could have access to data,  

but only in a way that citizens and  democratically elected governments would decide.

Suffice to say, we need to  move from old capitalist model  

to a kind of a new more equal  sharing of this wealth pie.