Podcasts about klon kitchen

Sarah, Steve, and Jonah discuss TikTok's influence over the youth (See: Kids call Congress threatening suicide over TikTok ban). The Agenda: -TikTok's Chinese ownership raises national security concerns -Klon Kitchen being cool on 60 minutes -Robert Hur's testimony and partisan political narratives -Did anyone watch the Oscars? -Kate Middleton conspiracy theories Show Notes: -Jonah's Gfile: I'm With Hur Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Andy talks with Beacon Global Strategies's Klon Kitchen about artificial intelligence and national security. Klon leads the firm's Global Technology Policy Practice. Andy and Klon also talk about the recent Executive Order on AI. 

Kevin D. Williamson is joined by Klon Kitchen, Nonresident Senior Fellow at American Enterprise Institute. Klon's research areas include national security and defense technology, defense innovation, cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, quantum sciences, and robotics. 

Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Luke Coffey returns after an appearance last October with esteemed Remnant guest host Klon Kitchen. In that time, a whole mess of insanity has gone on in Ukraine—some of it good, some of it worrying. Now that we're a year and a half into the maelstrom, do Ukrainians still like Zelensky? How long can Russia keep its hand on this kind of a hot burner before wrenching it away? And above all, Luke gives us the reasons for optimism about the situation and why it's not only desirable but important to keep that optimism alive for Ukraine's sake. Show Notes: -Luke's page at the Hudson Institute -Luke: “How the War Could Make Ukraine a Defense Powerhouse” -Luke: “Don't Hold Your Breath for an End to the Ukraine War” -The Remnant with Leon Aron Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Is there hope for an open, rule-bound and balanced global AI ecosystem? This week, host Elisa is joined by Klon Kitchen, national security and defense technology expert at the American Enterprise Institute. Klon unpacks the U.S.–China rivalry in the race for AI dominance, China's growing defense industrial complex, and the pros and cons that come with increasing AI competition in the national security space. Klon Kitchen is a Non-Resident Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute: https://www.aei.org/profile/klon-kitchen/ References: Klon Kitchen, "AI as a National Security Lifeline" – Statement before the House Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Cyber, Information Technologies, and Innovation. July, 18 2023:https://armedservices.house.gov/sites/republicans.armedservices.house.gov/files/Kitchen-%20Written%20Statement.pdf The Cybersecurity Law of the People's Republic of China: https://digichina.stanford.edu/work/translation-cybersecurity-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china-effective-june-1-2017/ The EU Artificial Intelligence Act:https://artificialintelligenceact.eu Avlon, John, et al. “How to Reunite a Divided America: The Unum Test.” Time, 13 Apr. 2021: https://time.com/5954170/partisanship-how-to-reunite-america/

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The "public debate" about AI is confusing for the general public and for policymakers because it is a three-sided debate, published by Adam David Long on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. Summary of Argument: The public debate among AI experts is confusing because there are, to a first approximation, three sides, not two sides to the debate. I refer to this as a three-sided framework, and I argue that using this three-sided framework will help clarify the debate (more precisely, debates) for the general public and for policy-makers. Broadly speaking, under my proposed three-sided framework, the positions fall into three broad clusters: AI "pragmatists" or realists are most worried about AI and power. Examples of experts who are (roughly) in this cluster would be Melanie Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Kate Crawford, Gary Marcus, Klon Kitchen, and Michael Lind. For experts in this group, the biggest concern is how the use of AI by powerful humans will harm the rest of us. In the case of Gebru and Crawford, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are large tech companies. In the case of Kitchen and Lind, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are foreign enemies of the U.S., notably China. AI "doomers" or extreme pessimists are most worried about AI causing the end of the world. @Eliezer Yudkowsky is, of course, the most well-known to readers of LessWrong but other well-known examples include Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, and Stuart Russell. I believe these arguments are already well-known to readers of LessWrong, so I won't repeat them here. AI "boosters" or extreme optimists are most worried that we are going to miss out on AI saving the world. Examples of experts in this cluster would be Marc Andreessen, Yann LeCun, Reid Hoffman, Palmer Luckey, Emad Mostaque. They believe that AI can, to use Andreessen's recent phrase, "save the world," and their biggest worry is that moral panic and overregulation will create huge obstacles to innovation. These three positions are such that, on almost every important issue, one of the positions is opposed to a coalition of the other two of the positions AI Doomers + AI Realists agree that AI poses serious risks and that the AI Boosters are harming society by downplaying these risks AI Realists + AI Boosters agree that existential risk should not be a big worry right now, and that AI Doomers are harming society by focusing the discussion on existential risk AI Boosters and AI Doomers agree that AI is progressing extremely quickly, that something like AGI is a real possibility in the next few years, and that AI Realists are harming society by refusing to acknowledge this possibility Why This Matters. The "AI Debate" is now very much in the public consciousness (in large part, IMHO, due to the release of ChatGPT), but also very confusing to the general public in a way that other controversial issues, e.g. abortion or gun control or immigration, are not. I argue that the difference between the AI Debate and those other issues is that those issues are, essentially two-sided debates. That's not completely true, there are nuances, but, in the public's mind at their essence, they come down to two sides.To a naive observer, the present AI debate is confusing, I argue, because various experts seem to be talking past each other, and the "expert positions" do not coalesce into the familiar structure of a two-sided debate with most experts on one side or the other. When there are three sides to a debate, then one fairly frequently sees what look like "temporary alliances" where A and C are arguing against B. They are not temporary alliances. They are based on principles and deeply held beliefs. It's just that, depending on how you frame the question, you wind up with "strange bedfellows" as two groups find common ground on on...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The "public debate" about AI is confusing for the general public and for policymakers because it is a three-sided debate, published by Adam David Long on August 1, 2023 on LessWrong. Summary of Argument: The public debate among AI experts is confusing because there are, to a first approximation, three sides, not two sides to the debate. I refer to this as a three-sided framework, and I argue that using this three-sided framework will help clarify the debate (more precisely, debates) for the general public and for policy-makers. Broadly speaking, under my proposed three-sided framework, the positions fall into three broad clusters: AI "pragmatists" or realists are most worried about AI and power. Examples of experts who are (roughly) in this cluster would be Melanie Mitchell, Timnit Gebru, Kate Crawford, Gary Marcus, Klon Kitchen, and Michael Lind. For experts in this group, the biggest concern is how the use of AI by powerful humans will harm the rest of us. In the case of Gebru and Crawford, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are large tech companies. In the case of Kitchen and Lind, the "powerful humans" that they are most concerned about are foreign enemies of the U.S., notably China. AI "doomers" or extreme pessimists are most worried about AI causing the end of the world. @Eliezer Yudkowsky is, of course, the most well-known to readers of LessWrong but other well-known examples include Nick Bostrom, Max Tegmark, and Stuart Russell. I believe these arguments are already well-known to readers of LessWrong, so I won't repeat them here. AI "boosters" or extreme optimists are most worried that we are going to miss out on AI saving the world. Examples of experts in this cluster would be Marc Andreessen, Yann LeCun, Reid Hoffman, Palmer Luckey, Emad Mostaque. They believe that AI can, to use Andreessen's recent phrase, "save the world," and their biggest worry is that moral panic and overregulation will create huge obstacles to innovation. These three positions are such that, on almost every important issue, one of the positions is opposed to a coalition of the other two of the positions AI Doomers + AI Realists agree that AI poses serious risks and that the AI Boosters are harming society by downplaying these risks AI Realists + AI Boosters agree that existential risk should not be a big worry right now, and that AI Doomers are harming society by focusing the discussion on existential risk AI Boosters and AI Doomers agree that AI is progressing extremely quickly, that something like AGI is a real possibility in the next few years, and that AI Realists are harming society by refusing to acknowledge this possibility Why This Matters. The "AI Debate" is now very much in the public consciousness (in large part, IMHO, due to the release of ChatGPT), but also very confusing to the general public in a way that other controversial issues, e.g. abortion or gun control or immigration, are not. I argue that the difference between the AI Debate and those other issues is that those issues are, essentially two-sided debates. That's not completely true, there are nuances, but, in the public's mind at their essence, they come down to two sides.To a naive observer, the present AI debate is confusing, I argue, because various experts seem to be talking past each other, and the "expert positions" do not coalesce into the familiar structure of a two-sided debate with most experts on one side or the other. When there are three sides to a debate, then one fairly frequently sees what look like "temporary alliances" where A and C are arguing against B. They are not temporary alliances. They are based on principles and deeply held beliefs. It's just that, depending on how you frame the question, you wind up with "strange bedfellows" as two groups find common ground on on...

Klon Kitchen—former Dispatch national security extraordinaire turned private sector sellout—is back on the Remnant to take a deep dive into the exciting (read: terrifying) realm of artificial intelligence. With ChatGPT becoming ubiquitous, debate is raging over whether advancements in AI will bring forth an apocalyptic future or a brave new world. Klon's prediction is that we'll end up somewhere in the middle, and he has answers to all of the most intriguing questions of the moment: How exactly does AI work? Should we worry about machines replacing human workers? And will Jonah ever forgive David French for his treachery?  Show Notes: - Klon's page at AEI - Advisory Opinions on an infelicitous use of ChatGPT - Marc Andreessen: “Why AI Will Save the World” - Nearly a third of adults under 30 support surveillance in their homes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's spring break, and your kids might have more time on their hands… so we are revisiting one of our best and increasingly relevant episodes.Over a third of Americans spend hours every day on an app that directly feeds their data to the Chinese government. TikTok, owned by Chinese parent company Bytedance, is constantly collecting reams of data on its users, from GPS to keystrokes to outer-app monitoring, and even encrypted data that might be useful someday. But aren't these D.C. elite problems — worrying only for those who plan to work in intelligence or government someday? Nope. The implications of China's TikTok-enabled reach touch almost every American. Personal privacy aside, our national security is at immediate risk. The Chinese Communist Party exerts a measure of control over more than one-third of Americans. Are we going to continue to cede our sovereignty to Xi Jinping? Or will the U.S. Government shut down TikTok once and for all?These questions with Klon Kitchen, a senior fellow at AEI. He specializes in national security, defense technology, innovation, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence. Previously, he was a director at the Heritage Foundation and was the national security advisor to Sen. Ben Sasse. He has worked at the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, in the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, and at the Defense Intelligence Agency.Download the transcript here

Over a third of Americans spend hours every day on an app that directly feeds their data to the Chinese government. TikTok, owned by Chinese parent company Bytedance, is constantly collecting reams of data on its users, from GPS to keystrokes to outer-app monitoring, and even encrypted data that might be useful someday. But aren't these D.C. elite problems — worrying only for those who plan to work in intelligence or government someday? Nope. The implications of China's TikTok-enabled reach touch almost every American. Personal privacy aside, our national security is at immediate risk. The Chinese Communist Party exerts a measure of control over more than one-third of Americans. Are we going to continue to cede our sovereignty to Axios Jinping? Or will the U.S. Government shut down TikTok once and for all?These questions with Klon Kitchen, a senior fellow at AEI. He specializes in national security, defense technology, innovation, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence. Previously, he was a director at the Heritage Foundation and was the national security advisor to Sen. Ben Sasse. He has worked at the NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, in the Office of the Director of Central Intelligence, and at the Defense Intelligence Agency.Download the transcript here

Over a third of Americans spend hours every day on an app that directly feeds their data to the Chinese government. TikTok, owned by Chinese parent company Bytedance, is constantly collecting reams of data on its users, from GPS to keystrokes to outer-app monitoring, and even encrypted data that might be useful someday. But aren't these D.C. […]

In this episode of DISINFORMATION WARS, host Ilan Berman talks to Klon Kitchen of the American Enterprise Institute about how technology is enabling China's deepening domestic repression, and how that same technology is becoming an important - and ominous - export commodity for the PRC.

John speaks with national security and technology expert Klon Kitchen, exploring the impact of technology on the American social contract, and its role in contemporary warfare, including the role American 'Big Tech' companies have played in supporting Ukraine in their war with Putin's Russia.

Klon Kitchen, The Dispatch's resident foreign policy maestro, takes control of the Remnant today with predictably wonky results. His guest is Luke Coffey, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who shares his expertise on national security. Together, they take a deep dive into the ongoing Ukraine conflict, exploring how things have changed since it began and what we can expect in the coming months. What tactics have the Ukrainians been employing? At this point, what is Putin's goal? And could Russia use a nuclear weapon?Show Notes:- Luke's Hudson Institute webpage- Klon's page at The Dispatch- Luke: “Prepare Ukraine for Victory in a Long War”- Klon: “Putin's Petulance”

This is our return-from-hiatus episode. Jordan Schneider kicks things off by recapping passage of a major U.S. semiconductor-building subsidy bill, while new contributor Brian Fleming talks with Nick Weaver about new regulatory investment restrictions and new export controls on (artificial Intelligence (AI) chips going to China. Jordan also covers a big corruption scandal arising from China's big chip-building subsidy program, leading me to wonder when we'll have our version. Brian and Nick cover the month's biggest cryptocurrency policy story, the imposition of OFAC sanctions on Tornado Cash. They agree that, while the outer limits of sanctions aren't entirely clear, they are likely to show that sometimes the U.S. Code actually does trump the digital version. Nick points listeners to his bracing essay, OFAC Around and Find Out. Paul Rosenzweig reprises his role as the voice of reason in the debate over location tracking and Dobbs. (Literally. Paul and I did an hour-long panel on the topic last week. It's available here.) I reprise my role as Chief Privacy Skeptic, calling the Dobb/location fuss an overrated tempest in a teapot. Brian takes on one aspect of the Mudge whistleblower complaint about Twitter security: Twitter's poor record at keeping foreign spies from infiltrating its workforce and getting unaudited access to its customer records. In a coincidence, he notes, a former Twitter employee was just convicted of “spying lite”, proves it's as good at national security as it is at content moderation. Meanwhile, returning to U.S.-China economic relations, Jordan notes the survival of high-level government concerns about TikTok. I note that, since these concerns first surfaced in the Trump era, TikTok's lobbying efforts have only grown more sophisticated. Speaking of which, Klon Kitchen has done a good job of highlighting DJI's increasingly sophisticated lobbying in Washington D.C. The Cloudflare decision to deplatform Kiwi Farms kicks off a donnybrook, with Paul and Nick on one side and me on the other. It's a classic Cyberlaw Podcast debate.  In quick hits and updates: Nick and I cover the sad story of the Dad who photographed his baby's private parts at a doctor's request and, thanks to Google's lack of human appellate review, lost his email, his phone number, and all of the accounts that used the phone for 2FA.  Paul brings us up to speed on the U.S.-EU data fight: and teases tomorrow's webinar on the topic. Nick explains the big changes likely to come to the pornography world because of a lawsuit against Visa. And why Twitter narrowly averted its own child sex scandal.  I note that Google's bias against GOP fundraising emails has led to an unlikely result: less spam filtering for all such emails.  And, after waiting too long, Brian Krebs retracts the post about a Ubiquity “breach” that led the company to sue him.

This is our return-from-hiatus episode. Jordan Schneider kicks things off by recapping passage of a major U.S. semiconductor-building subsidy bill, while new contributor Brian Fleming talks with Nick Weaver about new regulatory investment restrictions and new export controls on (artificial Intelligence (AI) chips going to China. Jordan also covers a big corruption scandal arising from China's big chip-building subsidy program, leading me to wonder when we'll have our version. Brian and Nick cover the month's biggest cryptocurrency policy story, the imposition of OFAC sanctions on Tornado Cash. They agree that, while the outer limits of sanctions aren't entirely clear, they are likely to show that sometimes the U.S. Code actually does trump the digital version. Nick points listeners to his bracing essay, OFAC Around and Find Out. Paul Rosenzweig reprises his role as the voice of reason in the debate over location tracking and Dobbs. (Literally. Paul and I did an hour-long panel on the topic last week. It's available here.) I reprise my role as Chief Privacy Skeptic, calling the Dobb/location fuss an overrated tempest in a teapot. Brian takes on one aspect of the Mudge whistleblower complaint about Twitter security: Twitter's poor record at keeping foreign spies from infiltrating its workforce and getting unaudited access to its customer records. In a coincidence, he notes, a former Twitter employee was just convicted of “spying lite”, proves it's as good at national security as it is at content moderation. Meanwhile, returning to U.S.-China economic relations, Jordan notes the survival of high-level government concerns about TikTok. I note that, since these concerns first surfaced in the Trump era, TikTok's lobbying efforts have only grown more sophisticated. Speaking of which, Klon Kitchen has done a good job of highlighting DJI's increasingly sophisticated lobbying in Washington D.C. The Cloudflare decision to deplatform Kiwi Farms kicks off a donnybrook, with Paul and Nick on one side and me on the other. It's a classic Cyberlaw Podcast debate.  In quick hits and updates: Nick and I cover the sad story of the Dad who photographed his baby's private parts at a doctor's request and, thanks to Google's lack of human appellate review, lost his email, his phone number, and all of the accounts that used the phone for 2FA.  Paul brings us up to speed on the U.S.-EU data fight: and teases tomorrow's webinar on the topic. Nick explains the big changes likely to come to the pornography world because of a lawsuit against Visa. And why Twitter narrowly averted its own child sex scandal.  I note that Google's bias against GOP fundraising emails has led to an unlikely result: less spam filtering for all such emails.  And, after waiting too long, Brian Krebs retracts the post about a Ubiquity “breach” that led the company to sue him.

Klon Kitchen returns to the Remnant for another round of vigorous wonkery on all things national security. This time, he's primarily concerned with the threat of Chinese espionage and the prospect of a geopolitical confrontation between China and the U.S. But he also has thoughts on the Ukraine conflict, the morality of Edward Snowden and Julian Assange, and the nature of quantum computing. Plus, tune in to hear his case for why you should delete TikTok. Show Notes:- Klon's page at AEI- The Current, Klon's Dispatch newsletter- CNN's Huawei exclusive- Klon: “Ban TikTok Now”- China's “thousand grains of sand” approach to intelligence collection- Klon: “When the Chips Are Down”- Last weekend's Ruminant- Klon: “Quantum Q&A”

Robert O'Brien, former U.S. ambassador and national security advisor to President Donald Trump, joins Klon Kitchen for a discussion of international politics from a bird's-eye view. They discuss his time working for the former president, and the job of national security advisor. Plus: How can the United States protect itself from Chinese economic espionage? China's threat to Taiwan? And what is the future of the war in Ukraine? Show Notes:-Uphill: The Showdown Over the China Competition Bill-The Current: Ban TikTok Now-The Current: Getting Smart on Intelligence

In this episode of Intelligence Matters, host Michael Morell speaks with Klon Kitchen, Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Jamil Jaffer, founder and Executive Director of the National Security Institute at George Mason University, about a range of current national security topics, including Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities, and the national security implications of regulating Big Tech companies. Kitchen and Jaffer offer their views on why politically-driven legislation could negatively affect innovation that they say is crucial to U.S. national security and to maintaining the country's competitive edge. They also share thoughts on why European and Chinese approaches are ill-suited for American markets. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Remnant gets wonky today as Klon Kitchen, AEI senior fellow and author of The Current newsletter for The Dispatch, returns to discuss Russia's information war in Ukraine. With no end in sight for the conflict, Jonah and Klon explore what America's intelligence support for Ukraine looks like and what other measures we could take to assist the country. They also touch on the veracity of Russia and China's COVID statistics, what Putin's war will mean for Taiwan, and how Klon would advise Joe Biden if he were summoned to the White House. Stick around until the end for obligatory dog discourse. Show Notes:- Klon's page at The Dispatch- Klon: “Why Russia's Cyber Warriors Haven't Crippled Ukraine”- Daniel Hannan: “Vladimir Putin's kleptocracy will be his own undoing”- Mike Duncan on the Russian Revolution- The Remnant with Mike Duncan- Klon on semiconductors and the “splinternet”- The Remnant with Lyman Stone- Jonah: “Vladimir Putin, Brittle Oak”- The Remnant with Edward Carr- Klon: “School's in Session”

Topics DiscussedViolence Escalates in UkraineCyber Warfare with Klon KitchenOutside of Politics: Our Substitute ExperiencesGet tickets to our live show in Waco, Texas on April 30th with Clint Harp!Pre-Order Sarah and Beth's New Book Now What?! Releasing May 3Please visit our website for full show notes and episode resources. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What's next in Russian war against Ukraine? Klon Kitchen, senior fellow for foreign and defense policy at the American Enterprise Institute, analyzes Russia's actions and makes recommendations for U.S. response   Mission of the Federal Maritime Commission Max Vekich, commissioner of the Federal Maritime Commission, discusses supply chain bottlenecks, port congestion, FMC responsibilities and his top priorities

Today on the podcast, Sarah and Steve are joined by Klon Kitchen, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, to discuss the latest in Ukraine after the country was hit by cyberattacks. Plus, how much is the Republican Party's foreign policy views changing? And what exactly can the Chinese government do with all that TikTok data? Show Notes:-TMD: “Ukraine on the Brink”-Klon's Dispatch piece: “The Old—and Incoherent—Foreign Policy of the New Right”-Ahmari, Deneen and Pappin: “Hawks Are Standing in the Way of a New Republican Party”

Klon Kitchen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he focuses on the intersection of national security and defense technologies and innovation. Through his research, he works to understand and explain how emerging technologies are shaping modern statecraft, intelligence, and warfighting, while focusing on cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, robotics, and quantum sciences. Back from the break, Klon joins Phoebe and Robert for a discussion on topics ranging from Big Tech, cybersecurity, and China to TikTok and the NBA. Stay tuned to the end for a special announcement from Chris Scalia, Director of AEI's Academic Programs.

On today's episode, Sarah and Steve talk with Klon Kitchen, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and veteran of the intelligence community to discuss the latest news out of China. What do China's hypersonic missile tests mean for the balance of power between the United States and China? Are we at the start of a new "cold war?" Kitchen answers these questions and more.   Show Notes: -“Why China's Hypersonic Missile Tests Are So Concerning” by Klon Kitchen See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week, the AEI podcast channel presents the latest Kitchen Sync Conversation with Jared Kohen. How can the US level the playing field in its tech competition with China? What role does the private sector need to play, and what is Google's Jigsaw up to? Is public discourse as polarized in America as it seems?  Klon Kitchen discusses these questions and more in a wide-ranging discussion with Jared Cohen, founder and CEO of Google's Jigsaw, and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Building off of the groundbreaking https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20463382/final-memo-china-strategy-group-axios-1.pdf (work) of the “China Strategy Group” led by Jared and Eric Schmidt, Klon and Jared consider practical solutions to America's greatest challenges in tackling China's technological threat. If you like what you hear, check out Klon's substack, https://www.thekitchensync.tech (The Kitchen Sync).

This week, the AEI Podcast Channel presents a conversation with AEI Senior Fellow, https://www.aei.org/profile/klon-kitchen/ (Klon Kitchen), and Twitter's Vijaya Gadde. To hear more from Klon, check out his newsletter, https://www.thekitchensync.tech/people/4355149-klon-kitchen?sort=archive (The Kitchen Sync). What is Twitter trying to do globally? Will the company allow the Taliban to operate freely on its platform? Why is China allowed to spread misinformation and why don't users trust social media companies? Vijaya Gadde – Twitter's Legal, Policy, and Trust & Safety Lead – joins AEI Senior Fellow Klon Kitchen to discuss these and other issues in a frank and wide-ranging conversation about free discourse, social wellbeing, and national security.

[00:00:00] Brian's BIG 3 [00:09:54] Klon Kitchen [00:18:07] Bill McGurn [00:36:16] Chris Wallace [00:54:31] Senator Ben Sasse [01:12:41] Senator Joni Ernst [01:30:55] Jason Chaffetz

David French guest-hosts The Remnant today while Jonah returns home from his western voyage. He's joined by Klon Kitchen, expert on national security and defense technology at the American Enterprise Institute. Together, they explore the state of the Afghanistan withdrawal, deficiencies in American cybersecurity, and social media censorship at the hands of Big Tech. Should the Taliban be understood as a unified or factional entity? Can we expect meaningful Big Tech legislation to be implemented anytime soon? And will David's DC Comics bias preclude any discussion of Tobey Maguire's inevitable appearance in Spider-Man: No Way Home?   Show Notes: -The Kitchen Sync -David reflects on the War in Afghanistan -The state of the Afghanistan evacuation -2034: A Novel of the Next World War -Klon on rethinking government access to consumer data -Klon's report on Section 230 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

From August 4, 2018: Technologies that distort representations of reality, like audio, photo and video editing software, are nothing new, but what happens when these technologies are paired with artificial intelligence to produce hyper-realistic media of things that never happened? This new phenomenon, called "deep fakes," poses significant problems for lawyers, policymakers, and technologists.On July 19, Klon Kitchen, senior fellow for technology and national security at the Heritage Foundation, moderated a panel with Bobby Chesney of the University of Texas at Austin Law School, Danielle Citron of the University of Maryland Carey School of Law, and Chris Bregler, a senior computer scientist and AI manager at Google. They talked about how deep fakes work, why they don't fit into the current legal and policy thinking, and about how policy, technology and the law can begin to combat them.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Due to their ability to calculate multiple complex variables at the same time, quantum computers are poised to permanently change how technology exists in society. But with the advent of quantum computing comes several risks to the US across a range of fields, including national security. How can the US sufficiently advance its quantum computing capabilities and manage the risks that come with them? On this episode, https://www.aei.org/profile/shane-tews/ (Shane) is joined by https://www.aei.org/profile/klon-kitchen/ (Klon Kitchen), an AEI resident fellow in foreign and defense policy. Klon writes frequently on the intersection of technology and national security, and recently published an AEI report titled “https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/quantum-computing-a-national-security-primer/ (Quantum computing: A national security primer).” He joins the podcast to discuss this report and explain what's at stake for the US in the race for quantum computing superiority.

Newly minted AEI fellow Klon Kitchen joins Jonah today for an uber-wonky discussion of foreign policy and cybersecurity. The pair explore how the U.S. should respond to recent cyber attacks, the merits of Section 230, and the distinction between dumb and smart hawkishness in national security. Should we revive letters of marque? Can Jonah ever discuss China without cursing Tom Friedman? And will Klon’s love of all things canine lead him to join the fabled pantheon of Remnant regulars?   Show Notes: -The Kitchen Sync -The colonial pipeline hack -Letters of marque and the Constitution -Defending forward -Jonah: “We’re not ‘competing’ with China. But politicians love to make that claim.” -Jonah’s dear friend Tom Friedman on overpopulation -The SolarWinds hack -Section 230 explained -Klon explains quantum computing -Hillary Clinton defines progressivism See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Klon Kitchen, a tech policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute who authored the Heritage Foundation's Section 230 reform proposal, joins Ellysse and Ashley to unpack the political debate surrounding Section 230 and the treatment of political speech online.MentionedKlon Kitchen, “Section 230—Mend It, Don't End It” (Heritage Foundation, October 2020).RelatedAshley Johnson and Daniel Castro, “Proposals to Reform Section 230” (ITIF, February 2021).

If you've ever had a post flagged on or removed from social media, you need to know about the arcane sounding Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act.  Klon Kitchen, the Director of the Heritage Foundation's Center for Technology Policy joins me to take an in-depth look into Section 230 - called “the 26 words that created the Internet.” And how the Big Tech/Social Media companies have squandered the public's trust by abusing its privileges.

Technology has always played a role in global affairs, encouraging trade, cooperation, and competition among nations. Today's tech giants, however, are not just influential bystanders in the international arena. They have become peers to global political powers, sometimes going toe-to-toe with state actors. Digital technology, software engineering, and big data companies often find themselves as the gatekeepers of crucial national security information and technology. How can the U.S. government best cooperate with tech giants to achieve national security aims and stymie adversaries like China? What strategies have state actors like the U.S., China, and Europe employed to grapple with the rise of big tech? https://twitter.com/klonkitchen?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor (Klon Kitchen) joins Adam to consider these themes and discuss his recent essay, “https://nationalaffairs.com/the-new-superpowers-how-and-why-the-tech-industry-is-shaping-the-international-system (The New Superpowers: How and Why the Tech Industry is Shaping the International System)” featured in National Affairs' special issue, “https://nationalaffairs.com/big-tech-big-government-challenges-regulating-internet-platforms (Big Tech, Big Government: The Challenges of Regulating Internet Platforms).” Klon is the Director for the Heritage Foundation's Center for Technology Policy. His newsletter, the https://www9.heritage.org/Kitchen-Sync-Subscribe-Page.html (Kitchen Sync), offers regular updates technology and global affairs.

China presents a vastly different challenge from anything America has confronted before. The United States economy has never been as deeply dependent on an oppositional government the way we are with China. We have outsourced significant portions of virtually every important supply chain to China.  America has even lost its manufacturing capabilities to make aspirin, penicillin and a lot of essential antibiotics.    Chinese Communist Party leaders are fundamentally similar to its old emperors. In 5,000 years of Chinese history, it has never seen the development of democracy, or the development of an independent judiciary.   China is not a “rule of law” society and views the law as an instrument for keeping the Chinese Communist Party in power. It has neither a civil society or an independent press.  And today, they are leaning heavily on their technology sector as a tool to enable a type of “techno-totalitarianism.”   So explain Dean Cheng Senior Research Fellow, Asian Studies at Heritage Foundation, where he oversees Chinese security and economic issues and, Klon Kitchen who leads technology policy at Heritage Foundation as Senior Research Fellow for Technology, National Security and Foreign Policy. We are learning that we have big problems with China. Join me as I talk with Klon and Dean about how we work our way through this mess. We will, but as they say, “it's going to be complicated.”

Cyber warfare is raging around the world, with China as the leading state actor. But unlike Russia, and unlike Iran, and unlike North Korea, China is deeply integrated into the US economy and many aspects of our national strength. This is one reason why Congress wanted to learn from my guest Klon Kitchen about the Chinese app TikTok. By now, Chinese global ambitions are well known, but less understood is how they have penetrated the US. The Chinese understand their nation to extend to every individual Chinese around the world whose loyalty and responsibilities are to the Chinese nation and its aims. “Any counter-intelligence professional will tell you that China is exceedingly active in the United States.” Within China's borders, there's a new Chinese cyber security law that requires all foreign companies to give the Chinese government nearly unfettered digital access to all their communications and trade secrets data. Learn much more about China's strategies in this episode's conversation with Klon Kitchen. Also, Global cyber-crime is expected to reach $6 trillion annually. And the problem is growing because “we're innovating faster than we can secure our networks.”

Joel Trachtman thinks it's a near certainty that the World Trade Organization agreements will complicate U.S. efforts to head off an Internet of Things cybersecurity meltdown, and there's a real possibility that a U.S. cybersecurity regime could be held to violate our international trade obligations. Claire Schachter and I dig into the details of the looming disaster and how to avoid it. In the news, Paul Rosenzweig analyzes the Ninth Circuit holding that scraping publicly available information doesn't violate the CFAA. The California legislature has adjourned, leaving behind a smoking ruin where Silicon Valley's business models used to be. Mark MacCarthy elaborates: One new law would force companies like Uber and Lyft (and a boatload more) to treat workers as employees, not contractors. Another set of votes has left the California Consumer Privacy Act more or less unscathed as its 2020 effective date looms. Really, it's beginning to look as though even California hates Silicon Valley.  Klon Kitchen and I discuss the latest round of U.S. sanctions on North Korean hacking groups. The sanctions won't hit anyone in North Korea, but they might affect a few of their enablers on the Internet. The real question, though, is this: Since sanctions violations are punishable even when they aren't intentional, will U.S. companies whose money is stolen by the Lazarus Group be penalized for having engaged in a prohibited transaction with a sanctioned party? Maybe the Lazarus Group should steal a license too, just to be sure.  Klon also lays out in chilling detail what the Russians were really trying to do to Ukraine's grid—and the growing risk that someone is going to launch a destructive cyberattack that leads to a cycle of serious real-world violence. The drone attack on Saudi oil facilities shows how big that risk can be.  Paul examines reports that Israel planted spy devices near the White House. He thinks it says more about the White House than about Israel. Paul also reports on one of the unlikelier escapades of students from his alma mater: Trading 15 minutes at the keyboard for a lifetime of trouble on their permanent records. The lesson? If you try to access the president's tax data online, you're going to jail, prank or not. I walk back the deepfake voice scam story, but Klon points out that it reflects a future that is coming for U.S. soon, if not today. Proving the old adage about a fool for a lawyer, the Mar-a-Lago trespasser has been found guilty after an ineffective pro se defense. Klon digs into the long and thoughtful op-ed by NSA's Glenn Gerstell about the effects of the “digital revolution” on national security. I note the recent Carnegie report trying to move the encryption debate forward. I also plug my upcoming speech in Israel on the topic.    Download the 278th Episode (mp3).   You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed!   As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug!   The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of the firm.

Over the past forty years, since Deng Xiaoping began his policy of “Reform and Opening,” the People's Republic of China (PRC) has evolved from a less developed country to the second largest gross domestic product (GDP) in the world. Over the past 25 years, it has also steadily transformed the People's Liberation Army (PLA) into a force that is capable of influencing regional, and increasingly global, security environments. While the United States can't seem to look beyond the next election cycle, China is far along in its decades-long vision to be the dominant economic and military power in the world On the latest edition of “The Bill Walton Show,” I spoke with Heritage Foundation senior research fellows Klon Kitchen and Dean Cheng to size up the China problem and begin sketching out an effective response. Dominating the technology sector is a key part of China's strategy. Listen in to learn more about China's high technology challenge to the United States, and also to its own people. Also take a look at Cheng's Congressional testimony (below). You'll find it sobering. And it describes only some of the reasons that China poses a long-term existential challenge to America.