 I think the three things that stood out was firstly a call from the floor for more international cooperation and collaboration of which they're just not enough of at the moment. Second thing was that recognition that there needs to be more education at a national level to cover all citizens in a state and the third one was that the definition of privacy is going to evolve over time whereas we can all agree what security looks like. Privacy is driven by culture, by national history and by an individual's view of what's important to them. I think the big one is going to be the Internet of Things and what are the security look like? Not just the Internet of Things but the base technologies the Internet of Things will depend on like 5G. So thinking about you have devices we're going to be in the network for maybe 20 years so we need to make sure that we're building security in not bolting it on for those products. We're going to make sure that they're segregated so that when there are inevitable issues in 10-15 years time there are an impact in the new technologies. I think we're at a wonderful point in the development of technology where we've learnt the lessons from the past, now it's our opportunity to execute and execute well. Well I think we're working on all of those technologies having working for such a large organization of 176,000 people. With every opportunity come to challenge and it's about how these technologies are going to be used in the future and it's limitless the imagination that we're going to have as far as opportunities are concerned. The problem is bad guys are just as innovative as the good guys so whatever we develop they're going to come out of a way to monopolize that use it for their own ends and that's where there's always going to be that balance. It is an arms race between the good guys and the bad guys so I think we're always going to be busy. I think more lucrative and easier quite frankly. I think the barriers to entry have lowered so far now for cyber crime where you can just buy threats, you can buy vulnerabilities, you can buy lists of people to attack and the reasons to attack have begun so so large now that yes I can understand why there's a reluctance to get involved in physical crime when cyber crime is now so easy. No I don't. I think it'd be a lovely theory. Look you can't have trust without privacy you haven't got privacy without security so you're building up and I don't think we've yet established a baseline for how to actually implement good security and how to measure good security. I think there's a lot of good work going on at the moment but I think we're still really at the early part of the journey. There's a lot of legacy technologies that are still being used day in day out by all members of society and until we actually go through that exercise of getting rid of the legacy technologies moving to the newer secure technologies or at least mitigating the risk of the old technologies there's still going to be a huge cyber risk and cyber crime. It's certainly going to be a very different security paradigm in the future. We're not quite there yet but there's a lot of companies working on it including ours are pushing forward the boundaries. How that actually looks when it comes to implementation I think is still an open question because it's too early in the development.