 Yeah, well, while he's gone, we're live. Oh, we're live. Anyway, there are extra copies of paper version of the article I did in the back. Anybody who wants them can have them. It's sort of a catalog of the problems. And I'm convinced that I'm wrong about some of that stuff, but it does identify a lot of the issues. So I'm very sympathetic to your example of the motion to suppress the illegal search and jurors using Google or whatever to find out about information that they've been told that they ought not be looking for. That does strike me as a real due process problem and counts against public access to that sort of information. And so I start thinking about, well, how can we deal with this? The first thing that comes to mind is, well, you could do a temporary seal on information like that for the length of the litigation and try to keep it out of the public eye until it's no longer harmful and then you release it. But that's not going to solve the repeat offender problem that you raised. And so I start spinning through a couple other ideas. And eventually what I get to is, look, we have to accept that our system of justice has numerous ways in which it depends on people following the rules. And you can't design around the people who are determined to violate those rules. And so maybe that means judges should give even sterner warnings to jurors and say, and maybe even explain the rationale. Not just say, don't go home and read about this. Don't do a cursory prepared statement or something, but try to really, in a compelling way, say this is fundamental to our system of justice. And here's why. And so I'm instructing you in the strongest terms possible that you are not allowed to do this. And maybe it will work, and maybe it won't, but it's the best we can do. And we rely on people following the rules in a dozen other ways in our system of justice. And so there it is. I agree with you. I think that the answer is, you're going to find the answer in things that are far simpler than we think the answer can be found in. Obviously, if you, you know, one good rule is every single, I think one good rule of the Judicial Conference is now considering is a rule of historian proposed, which was kind of obvious, if anybody thought about it, which is whenever you file a motion to seal or report, seals a document, right? There ought to be a time limit on it, because there's no information that's so sensitive that at some point it continues to be sensitive forever, right? So a good example would be information that's involved in an electronic surveillance. I get a T3 order from a court. I'm listening to a drug dealer. Well, the information is no longer going to be that sensitive once we've tried the case, obviously, because at that point it's been disclosed to the person who's most interested in it. But there should never be anything filed where it's under seal forever. Another good example where it's even simpler is maybe stir our mornings with juries would help. One thing that I've done, I try a lot in health care fraud cases. And in those health care fraud cases, I'm dealing with a lot of medical records, because that's just part of the evidence. The patients are the victims in many instances. And so we're going to be talking about what happened in the physician's office, prosecuting the physician. That's the subject of the thing. Well, you can redact everything with a really, really complicated, expensive process, or you have a rule. But you know what works perfectly well is you have the judge give the jury an instruction at the beginning of the trial. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to be actually looking at, and part of the evidence in this case involves people's health records. I think you need to realize that you only want to be using that information for purposes of your adjudication here today. Likewise, the same instruction is given to the public who's watching. Legally, it doesn't control anything. But as a practical matter, newspapers, even now, even though they're legally entitled to report the names of rape victims, they don't. Because social norms take over. So I think that the recognition that the norms of who we are as a people can, in fact, supplement the law in a really important way. And that's going to be an aspect of information management that I think we in our litigious world often forget. I think what I'm going to comment brings up, I think we should have pointed out more explicitly is the best privacy rules change the incentives. I think if you look at, for instance, security breach notification laws, the genius of them is they don't tell individuals how to secure data. They simply say, if you mess up and you spill data, you're going to pay for this disclosure. So it really shapes incentives greatly. I found in particular with data aggregation companies, they can figure out ways around any rule. No matter how careful you are, they find out ways of doing it. And they will trick people into providing information, et cetera. Changing the incentive model, it's got to be part of the solution. I would actually second that point. You may ask what helped fix some of the privacy issues in our federal courts. And it really wasn't the New York Times article, and it wasn't the Senate investigation. I'm convinced the thing that mattered the most was the judge who fined a lawyer several thousand dollars for filing social security numbers. And work has gotten out in the bar that if you file, at least in that jurisdiction, it's going to cost you a lot of money if you screw up. And I think that makes a real difference that we care about that. Thank you very much. So we have a few minutes left, and I really just want to open it up to see if anybody has any closing comments or things they want to say about today. We've got about 20 minutes, so if anybody have any comments they'd like to make. Tim Stam. And with the six-ling about the privacy issues, I think more than whether it's a social security number or a driver's license number, it's affected. It's their name getting out there when they're involved in litigation. So most people have very few documents about themselves on the line. Maybe even Charlotte has lots of documents, but most of them are normal citizens. They're not in the news all the time. They live pretty much part of lives. And the courts are one places where you get a name out there along with interesting stories attached to your name that's involved in the litigation. And it's extremely confrontational, and it's sort of what I was mentioning that to Peter earlier, it's something which is often painful in both ways. And what happens is this information gets out there, and pretty soon that's the only thing you find out about this person we serve in Google. And it has nothing to do with whether someone's going to steal their identity or anything else. It's just that this is it, because they don't know how to protect their reputation online in any other way. And many people don't even know this information is out there about them. So I think as the courts look through privacy issues, beyond just sort of here's sort of data aggregation that might be done by choice according to some of these other companies, it's how do they look at the stuff that gets out and indexed by Google around the internet? How does that impact these individuals? I can see many people maybe not following lawsuits for employment cases, because they're afraid to have their name attached to employment discrimination case, even if they're totally legitimate that they do it, just every other employer will hire them. And so it probably impacts their choices as well. So that's the one thing I wanted to throw out. Nothing, just a different way of sort of looking at privacy, which might be totally open in terms of what the legalities are. What really impacts these laws? Just wanted to make a comment. My name's Adriel Hampton. I do a podcast about government openness and technology. And it's kind of how I found out about this movement even before Carl and Biden. But I think that one of the most important things of activism of this type is to make sure that everyone knows about it, because they have to hear it over and over again to realize what a good idea it is to get primary source materials, building codes, et cetera, online for free. And the way to do that is to, if you're on Facebook post a status update about being there, if you're part of newsletters or listservs to do that, if you go to religious services to tell people about it, because people have to hear something over and over to realize how good it is. I mean, part of my annexes around that I don't want to see it take two or three generations to change, because I think that the way we're headed, we're going to crumble under our own weight. So we can make change happen faster, and the way to do it is to talk to people now. What else? Mr. Bering, any closing comments? Well, thank you everybody for coming. We'll have video up online, probably by this weekend as a rough cut, and then in a month or so, we'll have a nice headed version of this workshop available. So thank you very much for coming today. Thank you. So here's extra copies of a couple of my pamphlets that I'll leave them up in the front, and you're welcome to take these. I don't want to carry them from back. I love you. I love you. Say hi to your parents. He's got ideas here. I'm Stan. Yeah, I'm Stan. I love you. I love you. I love you. Five months.