 As you can see, we've got a poll for you. So please go ahead and weigh in on this. You have the bios. We have an absolutely fantastic panel to help us with this question of, will the cyber defenders prevail? And what will it look like in terms of securing the information age? Our arc is, as the date shows there, 2026. So what I'd actually like to begin is we're going to do something you're going to try and influence the audience. So very quickly, from each of you, what is your answer to this poll, the letter, and a one-sentence explanation for why you take that position? So I'm going to start with you, Peter. So I would say none of them. And so my answer is going to be no, no, no. This is not a presidential debate. I'm just going to try and crack it away with that. All right, I'll take B or C. I'll take B. And I think what it is, it's going to be more risk-based. So I think in terms of valuation of assets, I think there'll be better security for higher value assets. Let's see. Oh, very good. I take B as well, both from an evolution of our technology, but also a more informed public in terms of how to engage with the systems that are dependent on the technology. I'll make it three for three and say B as well. I think the move toward the cloud is probably the most important thing that we're doing in terms of providing real security. I guess I'd go for B prime, which would be more secure from a technical perspective, but I would say from a safety perspective, we won't be better off yet, that there will be more of the bad things that happen. We'll have bigger human impacts in 2026 than they do now. Okay, I'm going to take C because all those things may be in play, but also there will be a larger sort of landscape for people to go after. And of course the adversaries will evolve as well. So we're going to close off the poll right now and hopefully we will pop up the results to see what you thought and if you were persuaded by this overwhelming emphasis on B. And while we're waiting for that to go up, I'm going to, oh, here we go. All right, so B it seems, but not by a majority. Okay, so- That's called a rubia win for C. Right? Sorry. You have to make a DC joke when you're here. Yes. Actually, yeah, we're going to move on, move on. Okay, so let's actually begin actually with you, Matthew. How do you see the internet's infrastructure evolving over the next decade and how do you think that's going to affect the security environment? Sure, so at Cloud Flare, our mission is to help build a better internet. What I mean by that is, had we all known what the internet was going to be 25 years ago when the web was really coming into being, we would have put in place a lot of security, performance availability that it just doesn't have from the beginning. And I think that a lot of the move that you're seeing to cloud providers is really the move in the right direction, where if you are taking a security posture and instead of saying, every single organization needs to figure out how to run their own security systems at the highest possible level of, with people who really know what they're doing, it's a lot easier if we can bring those people into one organization or a handful of organizations like a Facebook or a Cloud Flare, as opposed to saying every single person out there has to go find CISO, which really has the skills to do that. So I think that the move towards cloud services, the move towards more of the infrastructure actually being provided in a multi-tenant basis, well that seems like a very scary thing on the surface to some organizations. It's actually probably the best thing that we can do in terms of really securing what it is in terms of data that's being stored. I actually wanna get the Raytheon perspective on this. So the move to cloud, does it mean that we can basically just outsource our security to experts and large companies that arguably could do this better and we don't have to name specific companies? Do you see that as the evolution in this case? I do think that's a key part of the evolution is Matthew just indicated you cannot out-hire the cyber threat, right? As we talk about IoT and that's stretching further. The ability to move to the cloud and then have a centralization of capability allows you to extend its scale to have the niche capabilities there. But then also that next leap forward is the automation, moving from a signature-based threat environment to looking at behavioral anomalies and being able to do that in a centralized way. I do think it strengthens it, strengthens that position to outsourcing but recognizing that moving to the cloud also means we're looking at from the home to the enterprise. So whether it's a public environment or critical infrastructure, we're gonna need to fortify the entire landscape. So it does certainly help. Alex, Peter. So I see sort of a dichotomy and the dichotomy is the following is that I think you're gonna see the cloud, moving to the cloud. So you're gonna have a lot of centralized processing and a lot of centralized data storage but then you're also gonna have many, many, many more endpoints. And what I mean by that is you go to the internet everything in your home is going to be an endpoint and you're gonna be able to address those endpoints through an IP address or a MAC address. And so I think it's sort of a dichotomy. I think it's gonna be potentially the cloud will be more secure but I think there's a challenge in terms of making the endpoints more secure because there's really no one in charge of endpoints. Alex, go in the way. Yeah, I think Peter has it right. From an enterprise perspective when I speak to other CISOs, my suggestion is always to outsource as much as possible. Pretty much nobody in the world is qualified to run their own email service against the top tier adversaries except people who are providing that commercially such as like the Googles and the Microsofts and then have dedicated teams that are working on that and then are amortizing the incredible investment security engineering across many customers. But Peter's right too that we're gonna end up with more endpoints. It's interesting when we talk about IoT, we're already there in the enterprise world because we are living with the density of IP-enabled devices that I think will be common in homes in five, six years. We've got our IP-enabled security cameras everywhere. We've got our badge readers. Those badge readers, a lot of them boot up with each one has its own Linux kernel, right there. Each one's like a little unpatchable computer. Our HVAC systems, all the stuff that are still kind of dumb devices in the consumer world. And so I think there is learning to take out of the enterprise side. The flip side is obviously any normal household is not gonna be able to hire a CISO on the security team. And so we're gonna have to figure this out now before we get to that point where we regretted not building security into these devices before we ship them out to normal users. Now I wanna ask about the global nature of this. So we have representatives from US government. We have representatives from companies that provide literally global services. We have representatives from companies that don't sell to every nation in the world because they're aligned. They sell to US government and US government allies. And yet we heard this morning about a realm where essentially everyone will be using, cloud exemplifies this, doesn't respect borders, but it will have state-related threats to it. So when we're talking about this defending the cloud, how is that gonna be navigated over say the next 10 years? Where you may have, to put it bluntly, threats coming at it from the same locations where you have users or you don't? I'll start, I think part of it, especially when we talk about IoT is cyber hygiene. Think about it, I grew up in a time where we didn't have to put on a seatbelt from a safety perspective. And we've evolved as a culture not only where it's required, but it's automated. Where the car's telling you if you haven't put your seatbelt on. And so when we start talking about that internet of things and things going into the home in a public domain where there's not the CISO at home that understands the implications and the risks with all these things connected, there's that public-private partnership and also at the state and local level where you build a citizenship that understands what those risks are and what that risk profile is. And then again, companies like ours and those represented here bring the technologies together to lift it up forward. So, okay, I think some of the trends that I see first of all is insurance industry is coming up in terms of cybersecurity. And I think that's going to be a big driver towards security. And the companies have to assess a certain risk and now the CEOs are actually becoming liable. And so I think there's going to be from a corporate point of view much greater emphasis on security. However, we got the legacy systems we in the government have many, many legacy systems that are not very secure and we try to put bandages over them. And I think the salvation of that is as we try to move to the cloud, we're gonna, I think is that the cloud services tied together with the security company should be able to provide a more secure environment as we move those applications. But it all turns into cost and trying to finding the money to pay for that. Because I think eventually we're gonna have to move to the cloud and to get that greater security. But then also the challenge is again, the internet of things. And the fact that now it's a wild wild west out there because nobody's controlling my refrigerators as far as I know. I'm not, you know, my home CISO and I'm not sitting there making sure my refrigerator's behaving itself with a toaster and not trying to attack it or something like that. So I think we got a, again, and going back to that dichotomy, I think in terms of the enterprise, in terms of corporate, I think you're gonna see the insurance industry driving the companies towards greater security. I think the technology is there. If you take advantage of the cloud and actually thoughtfully design architectures, the cloud has the potential to provide greater security because the ability of the companies to make those investments, you standardize architectures and then layer security as a service on top of that. I was hoping that Peter Valencia would give me some free advice on what the question was about how we deal with operating in a multinational environment because I think that we see that on a just daily basis. And I think it's a tricky problem. So in our case, we see state sponsored or at least nationalistic based attacks coming out of countries like China, Iran, Russia on a fairly regular basis. Sometimes against targets that you wouldn't think of as natural targets. We're not political scientists, we're computer scientists and so when a whole bunch of our customers who were adoption agencies started to be attacked with these massive cyber attacks, we thought who can be against adoption agencies? Turns out a very large political issue in Russia about adopting Russian children out and targeting of those institutions and that we're facilitating that. China has been a really interesting learning case for us. We're one of the few technology companies that actually has infrastructure that is running inside of China. Along with Baidu cooperate to have 22 data center facilities across China. One of the advantages that that gives us is that we can actually sink whole attacks and keep them inside China. So a lot of the attacks that we see coming out of China we can actually use our infrastructure inside the country in order to keep the attack actually local. And that's one of the benefits of having one of these large global presences like a company like Codzler does that there's no way for any one enterprise to be ever able to react to that. I think there are a whole bunch of policy questions that become extremely difficult when you try and operate in all of these different environments. And someday we'll write a great book on all the stories that we've learned in trying to navigate that balance. And I think unfortunately that's about to get a lot trickier with what the UK has proposed, what France is moving forward with encryption. Creating a patchwork of regulatory environments across multiple places actually makes it much more difficult to have these global clouds. And if you don't have the global cloud then you don't have the data and security advantages that come from that the more you regionalize it the less the collective benefit and collective knowledge can be. So I think it's an ongoing issue and certainly one we'll still be struggling with in 10 years. We don't have this as a polling question but you've opened up a really interesting question to get each of your opinions on. Will in 2026 will there be a global cloud or will it evolve, continue to evolve on this lines of kind of a patchwork of kind of broken down by national law, region, whatever. Do you think it will be truly global or will it be patchwork? And let's just, we'll hear from you, Matthew. You brought it up. What's your first, but I'd love to hear from the others on the panel as well. I wrote back in 1996, I wrote my college thesis on how there were going to be nationalized search engines. Like how there's not a Fox news search engine blows me away. And yet the power of being able to access data globally across a unified search engine like Google is so compelling that one of the biggest requests that we hear from Chinese engineers that we work with is gosh, we really wish we had Google because we don't think we can find the resources as efficiently because of that. And so I think that there is enormous power from the scale that being global allows you to have. Yeah, but that power is also a threat. Absolutely, absolutely. And so there's a, and that's true with Google as well, but I think that the analogy of showing how far they've been able to take what I would have thought would become a very regionalized nationalistic system. You think about what Google fundamentally is, they're an editor at some level. They're an editor of a publication that's driven by search and that they have been able to translate that and navigate the globe. I think is really in part a testament to their skill in doing that, but really it's a testament into you want to have access to the broadest set of information regardless of where you are around the world, and I think that the hope is that that will overcome some of the regulatory challenges that I think are gonna be inherent. Let's hear real quickly from the other, so just start at the end. So will it be a quick one word answer? Well one word answer is I think is that the economy, economics, and people's socialization is much more global than governments right now, and I think government governance is actually more nationalized than the companies. The companies are actually headed to the political system right now, so I think it really depends on how quickly the world evolves to a more of a worldwide governance. And that's actually where I was about to go. When you talk about Google, that's a search capability. If you think about the solutions that a company like ours at Raytheon provides, there are governance restrictions, and also risk that are factored in when you start talking about a global cloud environment. So 10 years from now, do I think we'll be there? No, from my perspective. I think if we end up with a patchwork, you'll be very sad because a lot of the societal and individual benefits in the internet will no longer exist if that's true. Will you be sad 10 years from now or not? I don't even mind being sad 10 years from now. Okay, I'm gonna try a different question with you, which is you arguably handle security for the world's largest nation when it comes to members of your measuring it that way. One of the other trends besides the cloud and other things is just a sheer mass of people coming online and particularly coming online, mobile. How does that affect the job that you do? Yeah, it's interesting because the mobile revolution has really changed the security relationship between providers like us and individuals, and in a way it's only getting more complicated. So out of our, you know, more than 1.6 billion users, like 1.3 billion of them use us from a mobile device, and we obviously have a big project called internet.org to bring the two thirds of the planet that don't have internet access online. And one of the challenges there is that if you think about when it's like to come online in 2016, let me see, how many people in this room have had internet access for more than 20 years? Right, so the people in this room have grown up for two decades alongside the bad guys, right? And we take a lot of things for granted as the expectations of how we need to behave to keep ourselves safe online. Those are things we think are obvious, but they're actually not obvious. A lot of them make absolutely no sense if you think about it. So basic things like, you know, making a strong password, making it unguessable, not sharing your account with people that people are able to lie about who they are online, information about like allowing your children to talk to people from a completely unsupervised on the internet. The idea that on my device, if I open up a document that somebody sent me, that that might mean they can take over my device. That makes absolutely no sense. And it shouldn't be true, but it is. And so one of the real challenges we have is trying to figure out those things and provide the right information and the right training and walk people through the educational steps necessary when we bring them online to make sure that we're not just letting them loose. And we can do a lot to keep them safe while they're in our platform, but obviously as people get online, there's a lot of things that are out of control of the major providers. And that is a very difficult thing. The other truth is as we expand the scope of people who are online, the overall quality of people's mobile devices is actually going down. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of people who are online right now have Android devices that can never be patched. It will never be patched and are vulnerable to off-the-shelf exploits. And so that's another challenge we have is trying to keep people safe in a situation where we know their mobile devices are likely to be compromised in the lifetime of the device. What are the things we can do to keep them safe even if we're starting with that disadvantage? So yeah, it's not easy. You have to weigh that. Obviously with the incredible benefits a lot of these people get from coming online, but we just can't take it for granted that they're gonna be able to keep themselves safe on day one without us doing the things and providing information that is culturally and language-appropriate to make sure they don't take the missteps that seem obvious to those of us with 20 years of experience doing this. So Peter, we've talked about, in our other things, we've talked about cloud, we've talked about mobile from your perch at thinking through technology issues for Homeland Security. What technology have we missed? What over the next 10 years is gonna be another key one that we ought to be paying attention to that you're putting a deep effort into? So it's sort of a funny answer I'm gonna give you is it's not really a new technology. So from a security, I'm gonna talk from a security perspective, is that I see what's going on right now in the security industry is that for the most part, there's a lot of incremental improvements in cybersecurity but there's really no breakthroughs that's going on. And I think, but you also, the environments talking to the banks and talking to different agencies, the problem that we see is there's, everyone is overwhelmed, the workforce right now is overwhelmed because they have 70 or 80 or 90 tools out there that they're trying to use and they're loosely coupled. Those tools are all loosely coupled, they're not integrated. And I think one of the big breakthroughs that I'm gonna, is that there's something called orchestration tools that I'm not familiar with, everybody's familiar with. So that's a new tech, I would say that's a new technology that's coming out. The orchestration is really something that coordinates the actions and the passage of data so that if something is sensed and makes sense out of it then it goes, it makes a decision and takes an action. And that's actually a coordinated action. Right now there's way too much manual intervention that we wanna get the human on the loop and we're not in the loop right now. We have to get that human out of the loop. I think that's one of the big technologies. I think the other thing is that we're going to see is, I hate to use the word big data analytics because it's so beaten to death but that really everybody understands it. I think as we get the automation and we actually have the ability to collect a lot more information and actually assimilate it and share it, is that we're gonna be able to do big data analytics and so we're gonna be able to pick up things that we never could see before. And then I think once we've done that is the key, then the key is the information sharing to be able to share out that information in real time so that the people can learn lessons from what happened to you and they can apply those lessons, learn to their environment so that they don't get attacked. So that's where I see us going from a technology point of view and the cloud is always gonna be a big piece but that's been discussed already. The other technologies people would wanna mention? Self healing systems. We're participating in the DARPA Grand Challenge. There are six universities in Raytheon that are participating but that is for the, to give the system the knowledge that a hacker would use and to be able to diagnose those behaviors and then immunize itself against those attacks. So I think that's another evolution that we'll see. Let's open it up to the audience for questions. So again, please wait for, raise your hand. Please wait for the mic to come to you and actually if you could stand so we can see you as well. So any questions from the group out here? There's a, yeah. Please wait for the mic to come to you. Okay, it's blocked behind us. You have the chief, the obstructive chief. Two questions. We can just take one if you'd like. Alex, do you mention things that were out of control? Actually if you could introduce yourself. Sir, Megan Stiefel, I'm a consultant to public knowledge and a couple of other folks. Former White House and Department of Justice. So you mentioned Alex a couple of things that were out of control of major providers. Could you pick your top two that you, if you could weigh your magic wand, you would fix or identify for those of us who might be able to try and help push that conversation along. Second question is, Dr. Fonash, you mentioned the information sharing it. So I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit about the trickle down effect of how information sharing at the corporate and enterprise level will ultimately help impact our average consumers, particularly those who are outside of our beltway who hear about this, but may not really know what that means to them. So who's gonna do the first question? No, information sharing. Go ahead. I was gonna do the second one. Okay, I'll do the second, so the information sharing. So, I mean, what we've done is we've set up a, again, I mean, the government can't force information sharing on anyone or things like that. What we've done is through, you know, through information sharing analysis centers and things like that, we have set up a structure to enable the sharing of information. The next thing what we've done is we've developed some technology to share the information. And what we've done is, is that we've, there's two standards, sticks and taxi. Sticks is the payload and taxi is the actually transport mechanism for sharing of information. That's from an inter-organizational point of view. Now, in other words, one organization wants to share to another set of organizations. That's something that we're talking about with sticks and taxi. The one of the problems that I've been working on with and I've been working with industry on is, is the intro-organizational sharing. And that goes back to the point that I made about integration. One of the problems is, is we need to have, we'll be able to have data so that we can put it into the information and then we can share it. And so one of the problems we have today is the lack of automation and the lack of integration of those tool sets. It's very hard to get information put together to share out today because you can't get it, it's simulated enough in a relevant time, in a cyber-relevant time, so that you can actually take action if it's useful for you. So one of the things that we're trying to do is we're trying to get industry together to agree on some standards in terms of a common messaging fabric, in terms of so that one tool can share information with another tool. We're trying to work on a common data model so that everyone understands what every one other tool means. And we're trying to get those things together and we're also trying to come up with common APIs, which is basically how you plug in a tool, a particular tool plugs into that messaging fabric. And so once we feel that once we can set that up, and it's very much of an analog to the old PCs and the motherboard of the PCs where the processor and the video cards all plug and play, you can buy an vendor's product. What we wanna do is we wanna stimulate innovation and we also wanna make all those tools work together as a tool set. But then once you have those things is that you can actually then take that information, do a quick analysis on it and get some recommended courses of action. And you can provide those courses of action out through information sharing so that not only you take that action, but other people can take the information you put together, assimilate, and take a course of action to protect their networks. So in other words, I see something, in other words, you may hear that there's a burglar around and I see the person walking across street and I lock my door and I close my blinds and I call the police, but you also wanna share that information out. And that's what we're talking about with information sharing so that your knowledge protects someone else. That's what we're talking about in information sharing. So I believe the question was, what are two things that I would love to get fixed that would make people safer? So I think both of the things have been discussed. I mean, the first one from a technological perspective I would love for us to have a better overall quality of mobile device and mobile operating system out there. That would be the most basic thing that would keep more people safe than anything else. The second, from a regulatory perspective, Matt was totally right, the patchwork of regulatory regimes, even when they're supposed to be single markets like the EU is detrimental to security because the interaction between privacy rules and security rules and data control rules are all extremely complicated and building a way to keep people safe and to make sure their accounts don't get taken over or bad things don't happen to them in a situation where if you drive 100 miles, the rules completely change is extremely difficult. And so from getting to some kind of global consensus on how we're able to use certain technologies to keep people safe and what kind of information can be gathered to keep people safe, which has changed. For a while, it was a big deal not to give online companies your cell phone number and they didn't want, a lot of governments didn't want folks like us to collect cell phone numbers. Now governments understand the best way for us to do two-factor authentication to help recover people's accounts is to have an out-of-band communication mechanism. There's a bunch of different scenarios just like that today that hopefully can get fixed and we can have a better global consensus about. Okay, another question from the audience. In the back, yeah. Pete App, Simon Global Affairs columnist at Reuters. Again, we've obviously seen a lot of spike in geopolitical tensions. NATO, Russia, US, China over the last three or four years. I'm wondering how directly that corresponds to knock on a tax. Do you see a rise in bad things happening when tensions rise or is it much less linear than that? We do and see it fall when tensions fall. You know, the most recent example that we've seen is in Turkey where there were a large number of cyber attacks that were launched against Turkish infrastructure and large Turkish providers following the downing of the Russian jet. An older example is the last shooting war in the Middle East. The thing that was interesting about that was we tracked, we had people using Cloudflare on both sides of the dispute and the cyber war was actually quite quiet while people were shooting at each other. Within less than 30 minutes of the declaration of the ceasefire, you saw the entire field of battle shift from the physical world to the digital world instantaneously and attacks going in both directions. Yes, yeah. And so I think that it is, we're seeing, and what I think is hard though and what I don't have an insight into is how much these attacks are the actual government entities directing them or they are nationalistic individuals that are directing those attacks. One of the things, a question that I've gotten recently is has any of the change in policy and the agreements with China changed the types of attacks? And I think anecdotally, we've seen less attacks directed at what seem like obvious targets that would make sense, but what we're still seeing is the same tools and techniques that were used to attack what looked like, again, either nationalistic-based attacks or government-directed attacks are now going after what seem like much-odder targets like online gaming or other systems. And our theory is that internally you have the tools that have essentially been built by individuals. At one point, those individuals were getting instructions to say go attack XYZ corp because it's in the nation's interest. Now those tools are sitting around and it's like the torpedo and hut for Red October where it's out there, it doesn't have a target anymore and it's still potentially causing an enormous amount of damage. So I think it depends on which type of attack you're talking about. So for example, there was some tensions between certain nations in the United States and the banks were being attacked and there are large denial-service attacks against the banks. But on the other hand, the financial attacks to steal money are continuous, right? That's a steady stream. So the botnet attacks and the denial-service attacks spike and go down based on political situations and other types of attacks against critical structures and things like that. But I think you've got the intellectual property theft is pretty steady, that type of attack trying to steal money. So the criminal elements trying to steal money is pretty constant, not politically directed very much. And then the intellectual property theft I think is also generally pretty steady. But I think the more visible, the ones that make the newspaper type of things are more based on political situations. Yeah, I would say it is rare for there to be a international incident where we don't see a specific corresponding set of attacks against people related to it. We have a full-time conflicts and threats team. There's a lady in the second row here who works on that, whose entire job it is to watch what's going on in the world and try to predict what's gonna happen and how we can proactively protect our users. So last year, we rolled out, we take it very seriously. We wanna make sure that our platform is not used to harm people in any way, including by governments or government-related groups. So last year, we rolled out a specific warning to people where we think their accounts are being hacked by nation-states. We've always been warning people when their accounts are taken over. In this particular case, we're telling people it was a government so that they can take steps in their personal lives to keep themselves safe. I can't speak to this. Why do I not name the government? Why do I not name the government? So attribution is hard. It's not that hard, but it's hard enough that you might not want to. But you're able to know that it's a government. So I... I'm asking the questions they want me to ask. You're asking the questions they want me to ask. So for example, I think one, that information will eventually come out last year. The New York Times reported that we had used this in a situation where a certain Middle Eastern country that we're not friendly with had hacked hundreds of State Department employees and journalists and NGO folks in Syria and Lebanon. And so the people, if we do the notification and their story's written, looking at the pattern of the people and what they're involved with, it is almost always possible to figure out the attribution from that without us having to turn over any technical information. So I would say the more sophisticated the attacker, the harder it is to attribute where it came from. I would disagree. I would say the more that the country cares about being caught, the harder it is to attribute. We have very, very sophisticated attackers that know that there is no downside to being caught versus countries where they're very good and then also perhaps they're U.S. allies and therefore absolutely can't be caught attacking a U.S. company where attribution is much harder but you have some suspicion that it might not be who it looks like it is. So I'm gonna take a question from social media and actually it's about social media. So it's not directly a cybersecurity issue but it has become a cybersecurity issue. And essentially this is from Jade Parker who tweets it at counter jihadr. And I'm gonna essentially phrase it. I'm sorry, talking to you Peter. Yeah, her question is basically about will we see over the next 10 years the use of this space by extremist groups that was advocating violence in the same way that we see now and how will we see companies and governments respond to it over the next 10 years? Another way of putting it is how will the situation when it comes to the use of social media and violence be different 10 years from now? And again, it links to cybersecurity because of course that's been, that's at the essence of Apple, VFBI and the like. And we'll look at our social media expert but we've got three other folks who have, I'm certain have news on this as well. So if the question is, are violent extremists gonna use social media? It's kind of the same question as, are from now on violent extremists gonna use running water, electricity, the phone network, cars, right? Technology is part of our lives and whenever you bring a new set of technologies in it will be used for good and we'll be used for bad forever. Maybe to be more, how will the response from, so that we'll always seek to use, how will the response to the use be different? Right, so I mean the response from the the big social media companies, Western social media companies I think has actually been pretty aggressive. We have no desire for people to use our platform to spread any kind of violent extremism or to call for the injury of anybody and so we proactively, as well as reactively respond to people doing that kind of stuff and keep it off the network. We're also working a lot on capability building. One of the things we've seen is that as the big companies get good at kicking this stuff off you see these groups move to smaller social networks that might be very, very specific audiences and that would never suspect that they could be possibly used and so we also work in capability building by meeting with those folks and providing them with help so that they can build up their teams and understand how to do it. So I mean I think we will continue, we have a complete incentive to keep these kinds of folks off of our network it is against our terms of use and we have the ability and the desire to do so and I think that will continue but as all of these technologies continue to exist and continue to diversify even if kind of the core companies that represent several billion users are able to do a good job, there will always be kind of a rear guard action against the entire constellation of different technologies. Many of which are not gonna be based in the United States, many of which will not be responsive to the concerns of government. So I think from my perspective is that the, for example, terrorist or any other adversaries will always try to use any means they can to do communications, to do recruitment of people, to do command and control. So and obviously they want to keep it secret in terms of what they're doing and they don't want anybody to be visible. So yes, they're going to try to use any mechanisms they can. Social media is one of those mechanisms where they can try to hide. So what are tools that DHS you hope will have to deal with this say five years from now that it doesn't have right now? So actually there's a White House effort right now to work with the industry and I think it has to work with industry to inform industry that there's problems and to help to identify what those problems are and how the social media is being used so that they can mitigate those things. And so I think it's working with industry on mitigation techniques. Oh I was just gonna say the analytics evolution and seeing that mature more so that you can have some more predictive behaviors as you see those trends. I see them giving you that. So I actually think that we face a very different adversary now with ISIL and which has a much more sophisticated marketing arm. And I think that what the government has done in terms of approaching industry and making technologists aware of what the problem is is a great first step. If you think of the there's a theme that's running through the media right now that it's the government versus the technologists. I would encourage anyone writing about this to try and stay away from that theme because I don't think it's actually very helpful and I don't think it's particularly accurate. If you think of the history of Silicon Valley when it works best and what created it was when the government comes to technology companies and says we have a really hard problem whether that's we need to build more ships or build stronger bombs to win World War II or we've got to land a rocket on the moon because some guy just got on stage and told us we were gonna do that. That's what built the research labs of Silicon Valley. That's what built Stanford. That's what built Moffat Field. And those are the things that we I think can do if there is a cooperation. One of the great powers the government has is the power to convene. And I think that that power is extremely powerful and it's a really good thing. And I've seen really very good effort from the White House and the rest of the national security team to do that. I think that that is a very different power than the power to compel. And I think that there is a real power that government can use in enlisting technology companies to help with this issue and talk about how we can do law enforcement in a world where there are these technologies whether that's encryption or social media or the cloud or whatever it is. We're happy to have that conversation and again, really encouraged by the fact that government is coming to us and inviting us to come to them to do that. So I think that's a great ending point for what's been a fantastic conversation. So please join me in a round of applause for this place.