Reshaping the Future of People - Nations and Business

Schmidt makes speculations about the future that aren't based on any scientific basis. The speculations aren't even original, like 3D holograms. I didn't find any thought-provoking ideas or exciting insights into the future of technology. The authors also seem to keep pushing the idea that technology makes our lives better and it comes off as highly biased and sometimes like a sales pitch.

This book is almost all about how tyrants and governments will use technology and very little about how you and I will use it at work or play. Guess is you are a revolutionary or NSA you should read this

Incredible insights as to the enormous impact our global connectivity will have in shaping our future. From the good in educating third world nations to the bad for using technology for crimes against individuals and worse.. The new medium for terrorism.

No doubt authors are much honoured maybe that is the reason my expectations were too high.
The book is written for as broad audience as possible what made it simplified. The book looks now naive considering the recent privacy vulnerabilities.

This book is a little too glib and cheerleader-ish. Technology is wonderful and undoubtedly the hope of the world, but I don't think its proper application is likely to be as simple or effective as the authors seem to feel. I missed a contrarion viewpoint. At the same time, it's a nice 'gee whiz' survey of what humanity has manage to accomplish, and can get you revved up about the incredible potential that technology has to offer.

This is an easily accessible tale for the uninitiated about all of the core businesses that Google engages in and will continue to do so. Yes, having Eric Schmidt as the author means that every topic will inevitably connect in some fashion to something that Google does.

My biggest critique is that the book is simultaneously too cursory and too granular. The great bulk of the content focuses on (i) government censorship/information control (ii) the developing world and (iii) warfare, cyber and physical. (There is also a token chapter about how Google is going to make our every day lives oh-so-science-fictiony full of shiny gadgets) Granted these three are really big themes, but so much so that it almost seems that each deserves a more in depth treatment than is afforded here. Somewhat schizophrenically, at other times the book seems to miss the forest for the trees: For all the talk about autocracies, terrorism, and warfare there is no mention of the Western countries' demographic shifts, cultural diaspora; health care and aging; world wide economic troubles; energy production; pollution, etc. Kinda seems like those matter more in the grand scheme of things.

So the overarching theme about the future here seems to be is that 'things will work themselves out', one way or another thanks to new technology. But the author does a terrible job of intelligently introducing the reader to any of the 'on the ground complexities' involved in each matter. (Would it kill to have a brief discussion of the current state of the art in cryptography and why it's really important?) To put it somewhat differently, this book does not engage the reader in the 'how to' aspect of these changes and is instead forcefully conclusory: repeatedly the author uses terms like '[so and so] will happen this way' or '[so and so] will not happen and instead [this other thing will]' without laying out all the facts. The conclusions may be valid, but evidence based arguments tend to be a more interesting read. A few specific examples: (i) No more "Spring" movements; (ii) 'Balkanization of the web'; (iii) The NGO Bubble will burst.

i) Regarding revolutions: it would be nice to read more about the technical details of each such revolution, the specific tech involved, why some worked and why some didn't, the concrete lessons learned and what that means going forward (in terms of tech) for budding resistance movements, rather than just do a big fly over to basically (and quite unexpectedly) conclude 'Arabs are a homogenous group more likely to revolt if one country revolts so don't expect the same "Spring" movements in Latin America or Asia'.

ii) Regarding balkanized internet (e.g. Iranian-only internet): it would be nice to discuss the technical difficulties of doing so and the poorly understood world of sea-cable lines, satellite points of contact, etc., rather than just say 'this may happen'. Or how about the economic ramifications for doing so?

iii) The NGO Bubble- wow that's really interesting. How about some figures, numbers, factors that affect long term success, you know metrics, that thing that Google does a lot.

*These are just three examples I remembered at this moment. There are more; they are meant to be illustrative, not determinative.

Moreover, at times the personal bias comes through all too clear for this to be any type of academic work, which is completely unnecessary given the subject matter. I understand that as a public figure Mr. Schmidt must protect his reputation (as he spends a chapter on it) but some of the editorial content was just fluff without substance. At other times the neutral tone borders on the absurd: sure Saudi repression of women is perfectly normal. So here too it seems that corporate PR folk were very insistent that Mr. Schmidt not offend certain political figures.

Lastly, there is no discussion of the social evolution of either the Western world or the developing world. For all the talk of a 'personal web' and 'social internet' the book does not do a good job of exploring the changing psychology and social norms that is brought about by new technology. Again, here it feels like the author is purposefully avoiding discussing any potentially controversial social policies or norms.

So the takeaway is this- it's on okay read for a boring day but I expected more from someone who is supposed to have his finger on the pulse of technology.

TLDR: the book basically argues that mobile phones are awesome and will make everything awesomer; governments will find new ways to ensure that they know more about you than you do about them or yourself; corporations will continue to be corporations, but meaner and leaner; the developing world is a mess but mobile phones will fix everything; and we're gonna have more robots, mostly for killing.

Concise and enlightening on the finer points of the coming greater digital age as it relates to global issues. Very carefully researched and worded, it takes a prudent approach to presenting revolutionary ideas and points of view that are as futuristic as they are relatable to our world today.

I just had the pleasure of reading the new book “The New Digital Age” by Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen. The introduction Chapter one reads like many of my own writings about the impact of our Digital world in shaping our future.

Eric clearly is telegraphing the future of Google Products and Services as you can see the merger of systems used to develop a real time “Virtual” history of our world as in the Google Car and the space developed for Google Glass. It doesn’t stop there as the authors present a future where identity becomes one of the most critical aspects of our lives I quote: “In the future, no person, from the most powerful to the weakest, will be insulated from what in many cases will be historic changes”

Going on there is an intense focus on how governments will change as Eric and Jared both comment on the canyon dividing people that understand technology from those in charge of setting policy. It is not a book of doom and gloom on the contrary the authors point out the very fabric of human nature is to achieve greatness and prosperity, our future connected world will increasingly create levels of transparency that protect us from secrecy that most often coddles criminal behavior in both individuals’ and governments. There is an entire section devoted to WikiLeaks.

Book by former CEO of Google and chairman of Google Ideas, respectively, takes on the possible impact of the internet on all aspects of life, with some very useful historical perspectives and suggestions for future considerations.

Some specific nuggets:
(p. 3) "Internet..the world's largest ungoverned space." Pluses are the ways "that communication technologies ..help reallocate the concentration of power..to individuals."
Possible negative outcomes: Internet can be used to spy on citizens, can limit information by blatant control of access (Great Firewall of China, p. 86) or by more sheepish methods (Turkey, p. 87), also see Iran plan to use only internal addresses (so far on pause, p. 95). Report of Eric's visit to China being erased (p. 87); Google's response to China hacking its network was to withdraw from China, except Hong Kong (p. 109). (p. 139-140) Egypt shuts down internet and mobile service; and this backfires, outranging some, who took to streets. (p. 193) Iran ban on satellite TV has led to increased use.
(p. 49) Suggests possible ways to empower anonymous citizens to report to outside sources (set up by and located in a country with press freedom).
(p. 98) Advice to democratic states: Make open internet a new requirement for foreign or military aid.
(p. 115) Most likely use of cyberwarfare is "state sponsored corporate espionage."
(p. 179+) "Reaching disaffected youth through their mobile phones is the best possible goal we can have." (p. 246-247) "Arms for phones" as a way to disarm former combatants and give them a tool for an alternative future.
Military: (p. 201) Peter Singer "Wired for War" predicts a 'singularity' will occur with robotic use "..things become so radically different that the old rules break down and we know virtually nothing."
(p. 203) "An internal congressional report acquired by Wired magazine's Danger Room blog in 2012 stated that drones now account for 31 percent of all military aircraft -- up from 5 percent in 2005." Factor of about 6 in 7 years.
(p. 218) Reconstruction (from earthquake, etc) should mean restoring mobile communications (so people can locate relatives or post missing) and cloud services (e.g., arrange to pay police, fire fighters) even before emergency rescue is implemented.

Is it enlightenment about the future of computing, information, and electronics? Or, is it a long
infomercial for Google? Of course, it's a lot of both.

Certainly, if you want information about leading-edge technology from those on the inside, this is a
good place for those of us who are *outsiders* to find it.

A pervasive assumption made by Schmidt and Cohen in "The new digital age" is that whatever the
problem, if there is a need for a solution, some technology based company will be created to solve
that problem, for a fee, of course. Security? Lots of companies will be solving it for us.
Permanent storage of huge amounts of data? If enough of us want it, then there will be companies
there to provide it. Need to find something useful in all that data? Of course, that kind of
search is one of Google's reason for being.

"The new digital age" contains an interesting commentary about the effects of computing and
information technology in democratic states, autocratic states, and even in failed states (states
where there is no legitimate, effective political and police power).

And, by the way, if you are interested in "futurism", read the comments in "Rolling Stone" magazine
(issue 1202, 2/13/2014, p. 17) about the movie "Her" by Ray Kurzweil, Jaron Lanier, and Douglas
Rushkoff. Their opinions go from optimistic (we'll have lots of artificially intelligent computers
soon) to suspicious (maybe we'll have that AI, but it will be unsafe and a horrible security breach
to use it) to cynical (of course we'll want it, since we're sick; but we won't have it, because
we're too picky about those we associate with). And, Schmidt and Cohen also dream of a world in
which we virtual friends and helpers to keep us company and to do many of our routine (and not so
routine?) tasks for us.

Schmidt and Cohen acknowledge that there will be plenty of serious problems as more and more new
technology is introduced. What they seem to be predicting for the future, whether they want to
acknowledge it or not, is *not* a static condition or state with our problems solved, but rather a
continuing, fluid situation in which every problem will produce solutions and every solution will
produce problems. Actually, that is the "new normal" that Schmidt and Cohen seem to be predicting:
as new companies arise to solve our problems (the problems created by our new technologies), more
new companies will arise to solve the problems created by the problem solutions. And, in the end
(the middle actually, since there is no end), we'll be able to say: "See, the system works as we
said it would." That's certainly the kind of fun that the techies inside companies like Google will
enjoy (and profit from, by the way), but some of the rest of us may be less than pleased. And, they
also admit that those problems will create a huge and increasing need for lawyers who will both sue
and defend against suits over the problems created by new technologies.

Actually, it's a bit more complex than that -- There will be plenty of bad guys (and less that good
guys) out there who will adapt to each of the fixes and changes that companies like Schmidt and
Cohen's will be producing, so we need new fixes to counter that, also.

Schmidt and Cohen have some interesting things to say about the future responses of state
governments to our use of the Internet. The filtering is something that we've heard of before.
Schmidt and Cohen call China's filtering "blatant" and Turkey's "sheepish" and more subtle. But, I
believe that Schmidt and Cohen are most afraid of the possibility of the creation of alternative DNS
systems that isolate Internet users within a country *completely* from users and Web sites that are
outside that country. And Schmidt and Cohen really go into sleep-losing mode over cyber warfare,
which, from what I can tell, they believe will become more and more frightening as that technology
advances and as various governments invest more resources into it. Their phrasing is something
like: "a new arms race has already begun", and they seem to believe that some countries are building
virtual armies and stockpiles of cyber weapons even as we speak. I don't mean to make fun of this.
Nations have committed despicable and destructive military actions in the past, so they are likely
to do so in the future. Since there is not a lot that we, as citizens, can do to block or prevent
such things, my believe is that the real value of this chapter is that it's a start on helping us
become better informed in this area so that, at the least, we can respond intelligently.

So, an important question is: Can the companies whose software runs the Internet and the Web fix and
optimize out problems created by previous versions of their software and problems that are
encountered as pirates and Internet crackers adapt to those fixes? Even Schmidt and Cohen are not
overly optimistic about this. Or, perhaps they just want to make us worried enough so that we will
ask their companies to help us with their latest fixes.

For companies like Google and other companies that run and implement the Internet, these will be
times filled with opportunities. We are going to want the new (and newest) features, and we are
going to need the fixes to the software that became broken in the previous version.

For techies, it will be an exciting and stimulating world. For the rest of you (or I should say the
rest of us, since I'm just barely tech savy myself), and for those of you who just want to get your
jobs done, best advice is to wait for version 2.0, or maybe even 2.1 of whatever it is you use, and
hope that *that* version fixes some of the problems that the previous version introduced.

this was one of the most thought provoking books that I have read in years. I have worked in the tech world for the last 10 years and really appreciated a fresh perspective on the impact that new technologies have across the world - particularly in emerging markets and regimes often controlled by some pretty bad people. what I particularly enjoyed was the fact that jared and eric were looking at the impact of technology out just ten years which to me made it all much more approachable and relevant. this is a must read for not just tech geeks but all of us

States used to conduct one foreign policy, albeit with regional variations. The United States had an Asia policy that was partly disconnected from its policy in the Middle East or in the Western Hemisphere, but the regional components fit in the wider scheme of an overall strategy such as containment or détente. Now diplomacy is increasingly conducted on a global scale, and regional variations are no longer relevant. But in the future, states will have to practice two foreign policies: one for the virtual world and one for the real world. How these two policies interact, complement each other, or contradict themselves will be a fascinating area of study for scholars and practitioners alike.

Eric Schmidt and Jared Cohen, authors of The New Digital Age, are uniquely qualified to address the challenges that the Internet revolution brings to the world of diplomacy and foreign relations. The former is the executive chairman of Google, which he joined in 2001 alongside founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page. In addition to being a scientist and a digital technology expert, he is a life member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a non-partisan institution that brings together the best of foreign policy experts. The second is younger (Jared Cohen was 32 at the time the book was published) but he already boasts an impressive resume, having worked at the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff before being hired as the first director of Google Ideas, a think-tank and social business incubator. Together they have travelled extensively, including in war zones and amid revolutionary upheavals; conducted interviews with foreign heads of state, business leaders, and foreign policy experts; and surveyed emergent technologies in order to make predictions on their likely impact on political outcomes.

One of the book’s important tenets is that in order to understand the future of politics, business, diplomacy, and other important sectors, a modicum of technological knowledge is in order. But tech-savvy politicians or diplomats are still a rare species, and even the leaders of the digital revolution acknowledge that the Internet is something they don’t fully understand. The book offers few technological details, and doesn’t require any prior knowledge of the Internet sector. It focuses on the big picture, and leaves the nuts-and-bolts of Internet infrastructure in the background. This is fortunate, since most readers are more interested in social and political transformation than in technology development. Still, considering the frequent references to cryptography or secure protocols, a simple presentation of encryption techniques or other forms of electronic security would have been useful.

The book opens with a quote stating that “we should all be concerned about the future, because we will have to spend the rest of our lives there.” In the New Digital Age, Schmidt and Cohen bring the future into the present. By reading emerging trends, making projections, and anticipating disruptive events, they chart the course that government agencies, corporate entities, and grassroot organizations will have to face. Some forecasts read like the continuation of existing trends. The authors anticipate that “in the span of the decade, the world’s autocracies will go from having a minority to a majority of their citizens online, and for dictators looking to stay in power, this will be a turbulent transition.” But they immediately hedge their bets: “everything a regime would need to build an incredibly intimidating digital police state is commercially available now, and export restrictions are currently insufficiently monitored and enforced.”

Many forecasts read like business plans or ventures that organizations such as Google Ideas could support—indeed, a few ideas are drawn from the authors’ experience, and references to Googlers’ opinions are numerous. With the active support of the State Department, Google Ideas organized a Summit Against Violent Extremism bringing together more than eighty former extremists to discuss why individuals join violent organizations, and why they leave them. One conclusion was that religion and ideology play less of a role than most people think. Young men join extremist groups for the same reason they take to the streets and occupy places like Wall Street or Tahrir square: as the authors note, no doubt speaking from personal experience, “the mix of activism and arrogance in young people is universal.”

Other ventures that are suggested by the authors include distributing “invisible” phones that are designed to record no communications and that allow anonymous use of internet services; creating digital verification monitors that would give a stamp of approval to certify that a photo or a video is authentic; and designing an open-source app that would feature the world’s most wanted criminals and human rights violators broken down by country. It is not clear whether these ideas have been tested or not. Indeed, the authors could have been more transparent regarding the support Google provided to grassroot leaders of the Arab Spring. Conspiracy theories abound that see the heavy hand of the US government, backed by private corporations, in the developments that took place in North Africa and the Middle East. Likewise, considering the support provided to Syria’s rebel groups, some of them affiliated to Al-Qaeda, the idea of tracking weapons and small arms with radio frequency identification (RFID) chips seems too practical not to be already taken up by Western powers. It also seems sensible to equip the aforementioned “invisible” cell phones with a backdoor that would make them not so invisible for their Western providers.

Some sections of the book read like State Department memos issued by its influential Policy Planning Staff—whose mission statement was issued in two words by Secretary of State George Marshall: “avoid trivia”. Early on, the authors envisage whether a proliferation of WikiLeaks-like platforms is plausible (their answer is no), whether future revolutions will follow the model of the Arab Springs (unlikely), or whether internet will evolve into a fragmented and balkanized model (the risk is real). Again, it is to be noted that the authors do not quote any internal material or confidential sources. References to current events are tracked to online sources or to interviews conducted in the context of writing the book, with a strict observation of clearance rights and confidentiality. For example, it is not clear whether the Stuxnet virus that paralyzed Iranian nuclear facilities was linked to US and Israeli intelligence, as alleged by some sources.

There is one exception for which the authors abandon their line of non-attribution and neutrality, and that exception is China. It is to be reminded that Google withdrew from the Chinese market following a series of cyber attacks that were tracked back by some experts to the Chinese government. Although the authors document other cases of bad governance in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other autocratic states, the thrust of their critical comments falls on China. Stressing the strategic importance of connectivity infrastructures laid out like telecom equipment companies, the authors conclude that it is of utmost importance that this market does not fall solely on Chinese hands. What they don’t mention is that Google is facing intense competition from Chinese companies in many market segments, and that it has a commercial interest in curtailing Chinese influence over internet-related activities.

Schmidt and Cohen should have been more forthcoming about potential conflicts of interest, and they should have made clear which parts of their stories have been edited to avoid breach of confidentiality. Without these forewarnings, one gets the impression that they know more than they tell, and that part of their agenda remains hidden. Surely a firm as powerful as Google plays a role in advancing the United States’ foreign policy agenda. But this role will stay shrouded in mystery as long as the public doesn’t get access to the archives—which, considering the increasingly frequent leaks of confidential documents, may happen sooner than what historians have accustomed us to expect.

This book is basically about human to human interaction with a sprinkle of technology to spice it up.

The book covers technologies that exist and are on the near horizon as self driving cars that we all saw in The Phantom Car (1956 TV episode) one of the 78 Episodes of "Science Fiction Theatre" of the 1950s. Our cell phone, militantly intent on regulating his daily life, was depicted as a TV in "The Twonky" (1953).

The author throws in some contemporary names and criseses to spice up the possible futures.

I never trust books without foot notes and bibliographies. You never know what is being made up or how it is extrapolated. This book has a fine rich notes section.

This book is a worthwhile read and brings up some unique ideas on how we can use the technology for good or evil in our interactions.

As an Afghan war veteran and an historian of technology, I found this book both important and valuable, but also oversimplifying complexity in places.

Important and valuable for one overriding reason: for alerting a mass readership of the current and accelerating social-economic-military-political disruptions arising from the expansion of the internet.

But execessively oversimplifying of complexity in several key instances. One example of this illustrates my concerns: see discussion of "More Innovation, More Opportunity", starting page 18 and the key sentence, pg 19, two lines from bottom of the page. (I will discuss pg 66 and the claim that technology is neutral in the "PS" section, at bottom of page)

The issue in these two pages (18-19) was that of globalized competition for jobs, wherein borders and community boundaries fall in the face of internet outsourcing of jobs. Schmidt and Cohen oversimplify as they discuss how workers in Orange County must compete with workers in Uruguay. How is this oversimplified? By not accounting for the multiplicity of factors that come into play, for example, what is the cost of living for a working family in Orange County compared to an overseas location? What are the working conditions of any number of overseas labor markets?

But the most striking case of over simplication comes near the bottom of page 19:
"Globalization's critics will decry this erosion of local monopolies, but it should be embraced, because this is how our socieities will move forward and continue to innovate."

So, where are the problems with this sentence? At least two instances. Case one: to use the word "MONOPOLIES" when referring to local workers is a needlessly perjorative phrase, especially in the US. Are all local workers monopolies? For example, is a locally operated/staffed industry that prefers to serve clients 'face to face' really a monopoly because it does not promote internet workers who do not serve 'in the flesh'? Does it improve our society when this local worker is displaced by an internet 'virtual' worker who is not in the physical community? Case Two: doesn't this sentence need clarification and a nod toward complexity when the authors assert this borderless competition is good, that "this is how our societies move forward"? Let us stop and think about this phrase...what society? the local society which has now lost the local job? We must carefully consider the EXTERNALITIES working here, for example, what if the local worker was also the coach for the Little League Team? worked in the local food bank? Is the internet 'virtual worker' flying into the local community (in this case, Orange County) to coach the team, serve in the food bank? How does society capture these exerternalities? Perhaps by taxing internet commerce to pay someone to work in the foodbank? This depth of analysis is a bit lacking.

But in the end, the reduction of complexity aside... we all should read this, with a CRITICAL EYE. Society, local physical society, is indeed being "reshaped".

PS: I have received a surprising number of direct emails or responses to my review. Some asking for greater expansion on my thoughts. So, here they are. I mention my experience both in Afghanistan and as an historian of technology. Why? Part of my job in Afghanistan was helping to put back together a society that was 'reshaped' too quickly, in Afghanistan's case, by war. I realize the difficulty of putting societies back together after they are disrupted by war, OR technology. The reference to historian? I served many years in technical fields, from nuclear reactors to networks, and then was given the gift of years of study and reflection, leading to an advanced degree in history of technology. Such years of study help me to see this New Digital Age through a lens of long term, socio-technical change. There is an argument to not stray to far from our natural, human, physical roots... and I believe the debate over that distance we can safely move beyond the 'natural' may be the debate of our time.
A question asked: why did I mention in the title that certain parts of this book could be over simplification? Isn't that what good authors must do? Isn't that what authors often must do? A partial truth, yes. But for a sophisticated audience, and for authors of such stature, on such an important issue, over simplification when presented to a mass audience can, in my mind, be damaging to the public discourse (and, I grant, this may be the result of page counts and the deadlines, editorial pressures which Eric Schmidt may have missed).

So, where is there over simplification? See Page 66. Here the authors assert that "The central truth of the technology industry--that technology is neutral but people are not--will periodically be lost amid all the noise." STOP HERE..... lets think on this a bit more deeply. Who makes technology? People. If people are not neutral, than the technology built by people probably CANNOT BE totally NEUTRAL. And, yet, the authors dismiss the complexity of the issue as "noise"? A couple cases from history will bring the complexity into focus. Robert Oppenheimer, who built the A-Bomb, stood by the complexity of the problem of technology when he asserted, "...physicists have known sin...", not just COL Tibbits who pushed the bomb release switch over Japan. A more emotive example brings us to Nazi Germany. The engineers who built the gas chamber technology at Auschwitz "knew sin", not just the guards who herded the Jewish men, women, and children into the technology, the chambers. Perhaps more subtle, the German V2 missile program. The engineer, Werner Von Braun, merely built the technology.... he never pushed the button to kill London's citizenry, but note: President Eisenhower was morally troubled by Von Braun and his team of v2 engineers, even when von Braun was building American missiles... Ike knew that Von Braun, by building the technology, was NOT neutral. But, in the end, the US was in an arms race wtih Russia and hired Von Braun, despite his past, to build our missiles. Ah... that complexity problem again. Its a complex world. Technology is not neutral, but its here to stay. We need to have our eyes WIDE OPEN in the coming New Digital Age. We need to speak with clarity to one another. We can't soften the rough edges out of fear of hurting the other side's feelings, or driving away readers who don't want to engage complexity.

All the that said, we all should extend our thanks to Schmidt and Cohen for writing this book (they certainly didn't do it for the money), and for informing a mass readership, albeit with some problems with oversimplification and reductionism.

Five stars for a book which amply demonstrates what two master promoters believe is good and bad for wedding business and government. They claim it is based on a report the two made to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton. Flattering high officials with private briefings has long been a lucrative industry. Commingling and whispering at Bilderberg, Aspen, Davos, Council on Foreign Relations, TED, secret global jaunts on private and official jets; seducing publishers, journalists, scholars and domesticated dissidents with tete-a-tetes at CIA HQ and White House, Georgetown, Back Bay and Foggy Bottom, Beijing, Hong Kong, Paris, London -- never forgetting Bohemian Grove sweat lodging -- this book delivers what every striver needs to carefully study for upward mobility. Buy this book, or grab it for free on Torrent.

Expected preach: Google, Facebook, the store, and Apple are golden calved deity of the new digital age. The four horsemen's technological prowess will lead to political emancipation, healthiness, congeniality, mutual understanding, and, happily, huge profits for the manufacturerers of ubiquitous personal devices capable of spying on every user on earth to collect marketing data required to keep supply pipelines near bursting.

In the late 1990s a remarkable study was published titled "An Appraisal of the Technology of Political Control" (search Google! or grab it on Cryptome.org), later greatly expanded by the European Parliament. It described the vast array of technological means to suppress and control the populace -- everywhere. Schimdt's and Cohen's survey could be seen as an update without the harsh criticism of the earlier work.

Schmidt and Cohen are imminently reasonable and readable in this compendium of what's up and coming up in the digital diplomatic age. Soothing and sagacious, no wonder so many famous world shakers and shapers have bestowed advanced praise on the kind of volume by skilled teams always hired to research, draft and publicize musings and ponderings of what the world needs -- as if "world" was not a curse word. In this instance it is digital technology infusing "people-empowering" diplomacy which may counter the rise of every more murderous war technology and forever treacherous self-interested diplomacy.

Schmidt the computer geek and Cohen the policy wonk combine the two worlds they posit, the virtual and the physical, topped with the prestigious cream of being somebody notable. The virtual bloodless, newly born and future oriented, to affirm TED, the physical all too bloody, venerable and compelled to fight every war ever again to affirm Malthus.

There is nothing in the volume that is new to an scarred addict of the Internet, instead another a blessing of the digital doped diplomacy as healthy exercise and diet for what they term "the upper band" of well-to-do marketing junk to the under band.

Evgeny Mozorov will hand their balls to them for inexorable digital and diplomatic optimism. Next up: Op-Eds, Friedman and TED.

While national security ruses, lies, spying and propagandizing will continue to push junk technology in the new digital age to disempower taxpayers and consumers and dismember targets.

I was really looking forward to a thoughtful discussion on the intersection of technology and global affairs. Instead, the authors spend chapter after chapter breathlessly touting how the new world of cloud computing is going to improve everyone's lives. What they didn't do was fully explore the consequences of when Google knows so much about our personal lives and how governments/corporations will leverage that information. As other readers have commented, if you have read even a bit on this subject over the past few years, Cohen and Schmidt have regrettably added very little to the debate.

This book could have used some real reporting, facts, observations of reality instead of a lot of theorizing. They go on at some initially interesting commentary on how mobile communications can educate the world, as indeed MOOCs can do for the highly disciplined. But what's the reality? In well-connected American some guy is building a replica of Noah's Ark in Kentucky -- what's that say about digital enlightenment? -- and some of the hottest web sites are celebrity-driven. The idea of using psychological tests and social media to build up new leaders in countries after an uprising seems a techno-fantasy, and again a bit of reality -- how has digital media influenced American politics would have brought the book down to earth in a hurry. For all the talk of government mis-use of data I have yet to come across the dangers of corporations owning and accessing so much personal data, but I haven't finished listening and not sure I will continue. Big disappointment.

In history, we know what imperialism did to the world, yet we continue to support imperialism and cultural elitism in publications like The New Digital Age, (which should be called "The Looming Dark Ages"). It is not surprising that a respectable cast of the world's most famous and fearsome "Hawks" have written endorsements of this book--- The acknowledgments include Henry Kissinger, who along with Tony Blair and the former C.I.A. director Michael Hayden provided advance praise for the book. Are they the leaders you want to follow? Maybe so if you want to go the way of Chile in the 1970s.

It's human nature to try and envision the future, to fancy ourselves as Jules Verne wannabes, trying to prognosticate and predict what is to come. Heaven knows I've done just that on occasion. Science fiction certainly has shaped and informed our hopes and desires for a bright hopeful future, just as it has shaped dystopian nightmares of that future gone wrong. Dreamers keep on dreaming, but sometimes those dreams are nightmares and there's a bit of both here in "New Digital Age" although the authors undoubtedly intended it to be a largely positive take on what the future holds. The technological advances of the past 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years have been staggering as people of a certain age can attest. The rapid miniaturization and increased capability of so many devices is leading to new uses and applications that boggles the mind, changing mundane items such as automobiles, appliances, and communications devices into highly sophisticated and advanced technological wonders. Compare any item from a few decade or more back and they're comparing antiques versus what's available now. And what's coming promises even more wonder, utility, and more importantly, demand. Much of what the authors write about here seems fanciful, but it's not that far away. The rapidly developing 3D printers sound, on its face, quite boring but think of the potential applications. Just in the past week we've heard of a handgun made of all plastic capable of firing a bullet. That's a tad frightening in our hyper-sensitized terrorized age, but it's quite useful or less terrifying when used for creating tissue for transplanting into humans. Can't attend a concert you want to see? Not a problem. We're near a Hologram experience where devices can capture that concert and recreate it in a 3D way as though you were there...and not the crappy, bouncy, drunk and/or on acid videos you're likely to see on YouTube. Daresay we're tantalizingly close to Smart Cars that can drive themselves, Smart Appliances that can be controlled remotely or timed, and video games where you truly are inside it in 3D. These are the next killer apps and if you buy into this, as I do, then they truly aren't that far off. In fact, we'll likely have devices that will be able to capture experiential things, like a walk on the streets of Paris, and be able to repeat that at any time you want. Imagine your old video camera writ large!

While this does sound magical it will certainly take time and numerous iterations that will amaze, leading to the next iteration that will be even more impressive, hence the profit motive. These innovations don't pay for themselves and much of the technology will be quickly outdated like fax machines, VHS, Laserdisc players, and such. Much of this will be "Keeping up with the Jones" time leading to many devices being junked well before their service life is over. There is a dark side the authors do address and it's not all sunshine and lollipops here. I have this vision of all this antiquated technology piling up in landfills and squandering our resources. The increased use, deployment, and sophistication of video cameras will become even more widespread, especially in light of recent events. That should be a relief to citizens as it will provide more security, but at what cost? There is still this naïve belief that technology can stop terrorists or criminals before they commit their acts, but that's not the case. Right now such technology is limited to a role after the fact, to help identify the perpetrators. The authors have this idea it can be used to stop crimes before the fact, but that's an increasingly creepy and dystopian advance into the future of a Fascistic Police State trying to stop crimes before they happen that violates English Common Law. The recent bombings in Boston point to how quickly facial recognition can be used to identify criminals and that's increasingly more likely to be used in the future. But when it is, how often will it be misappropriated for use like DNA? You're simply at the scene but there's no hard evidence to link you to the crime committed? There are also the serious questions about the rise of identity theft, virtual armies, and permanent cyber-warfare which point to the dystopian future. That future has already arrived in the form of the massive ATM card duplication scheme that was just exposed and the reports of persistent cyber-attacks from China. Those sorts of things are MORE likely to occur rather than less likely to occur and it points to the weaknesses and vulnerabilities in our cyber-society that likens us to pre-1940 France. The theft of intellectual property and the increased hostility and criminality in our society is likely to lead to a new age of gangsterism, akin to what was seen in America in the 1920s and 1930s. Worse still, the American government has been terribly slow to react to these new modes of commerce, communication, and business and as a result legislation is largely stuck in a 20th Century mindset. largely leaving citizens on their own for protection. While reading this I was largely reminded how far we've advanced in 50 years, but chilled by the Dickensian future that may or may not come. It seems individuals will largely have to determine their own desire for interconnectedness versus their desire to remain behind firewalls to protect themselves from a variety of hacks, attacks, and vulnerabilities. What Schmidt and Cohen serve up here is a mix of both. The danger they put themselves in is now they're on the record. If the future fails to live up to what they've projected or prognosticated about then they're deemed laughingstocks. I don't know that's the case here, but from a historian's perspective that's a dangerous game. Yet I know how close both of them are to technology and they're the best to speak to its future. Yet on the same time they are Dr. Frankenstein...creating the monster and setting it loose on society. The key question is for what intent will it be used? The answer is, it simply is a tool...it will be used for whatever means it can be. Reading "The New Digital Age" I felt a mix of excitement about what is so tantalizingly close, yet terrified by how this new technology can be misappropriated. While I'm not a neo-Luddite but quite Libertarian this future worries me, yet like a rubbernecker gawking at a car crash I couldn't help but stare. What will come?

Start reading this book, and the breathless descriptions of what will happen in the future will catch you off guard. This book sounds like two men describing the new digital age as utopia, everything better and brighter and more beautiful. At first, it's almost relentless. I caught myself saying over and over, "Yeah, right... like all of this is every going to come true, or be as wonderful as the authors seems to be arguing it will be."

But then you keep reading. And you realize this isn't wish fulfillment per se (although in a certain sense all futuristic prognostications are wish fulfillment), but rather an amazing brainstorming session describing what the future in all likelihood really will look like, envisioned by two authors who know more about the impact of digital media on geopolitics and culture than almost anyone else.

I'm reminded of that notorious quote by an aide of Karl Rove's. The aide said that guys like [the reporter interviewing him] were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Well, if anyone is an empire, Google is an empire. It's a benevolent empire. Their motto is, "Don't be evil," after all. But they are an empire.

So if you want to catch up with reality as it is being created, you need to read this book.

If you keep reading, you'll also discover that this is not utopia Schmidt and Cohen are describing. Different economies, different nations, different cultures, are going to embrace and relate to new digital media in different ways. But in each case, again, the authors are fairly convinced the kinds of technologies they are stewarding into being will have the net effect of improving and even perfecting reality.

In this sense, the subtitle has a double meaning. First, it is simply true that digital media is reshaping the future of people, nations and businesses. But it is also true, for better or worse, that Schmidt's and Cohen's peculiar approach to digital media is itself steadily reshaping the future.

These two are in the business of creating the future they imagine. That they have actually taken the time to write down on some scraps of paper the visions they are currently enacting is remarkable.

Disbelieve it if you will. Argue with it you must. But what you can't do is discount that Google is doing its level best to make what is described in this book not as an alternative future but a future-present reality.

Great book about the coming "Internet of Things." Actually, most of it is already here, and being tweaked as we speak. Whether you are a Google fan, or an Apple fan, this is one of those books that is non-fiction, but still reads like a futuristic novel! Lots of information, as well as, thought-provoking issues to ponder, as the authors discuss how new technologies will/may affect society and the world! Highly recommend this book to anyone interested in technology.

The CD version of the book IS available on the store, but it is difficult to find. I currently have it from my Public Library, it is about 10 CDs and 11 hours long. Currently $22.77 from the store Prime. I cannot put in the link here for it as the 'Insert a product link' can't seem to find it. But I did find it on the store by an initial search thru Yahoo Shopping. About 5 yrs. ago I bought several CD Players for my house, unfortunately none of them will now play the MP3 CD which many of the newer CD Players will, so I needed the CD, not the MP3. Most DVD players play MP3.

This book presents a view into the future world of transparent, free moving information where our democracy will be redefined under 'pressure' of ever increasing transparency in societies, businesses and governments, all driven by the information technology. On one hand it provide unlimited hope for all the underprivileged as the world of free moving information will mean a world of greater opportunity. On the other hand it discusses threats and challenges of rapidly changing security landscape.