 Tena koutou katoa. It's great to be here. I like being introduced as not from the glam sector. I think I've only been out of the glam sector for about three years, but it does seem like quite a long time. So nice to step back and be here with a room full of highly creative, charming, connected people. Not that I'm trying to say anything about statisticians with that. So I'm going to share a bit of what I've been thinking about over the last year, talk about some of the things that have already been highlighted at this conference, the change that's happening in the world of data, and then tell you about the data futures forum and what it has done. Beautiful, it works. So data is a great field to be working in right now. Data is the new black. What steam was to the 19th century, oil to the 20th, data is to the 21st, or so we're told. Chief Executive has only been with us for about a year. I was really keen to get a t-shirt. Nice black one. Data is the new black. Chief Executives are keen on it. Ministers are keen on it. The United Nations is keen. There's a whole focus in this area. It's seen as driving the engine of the economy, enabling social development, for example with the Arab Spring. How's this manifesting right now? Rick Alice already mentioned the increase in the flow of data and communication over the last five years or so. So McKinsey would say an increase seven-fold from 2008 to 2013. More data produced every 15 days currently than before 2003. 44 times more data expected in 2020 than there was in 2009. I quite like these numbers because I'm not sure if they're actually accurate or what they mean, but tend to be used often. I think if you're sitting on the heritage side you'd be thinking, well, we were talking about a digital deluge already back in the 1990s and the 2000s. This is a trend that's grown over time from early computers in the 50s and 60s to relational databases in the 70s and 80s. But as Rick was just saying, Privacy Acts from 93, Official Information Acts from 82, Statistics Act, from 1975, are we keeping up? Right now, buzzword of the year, the Internet of Everything or the Internet of Things. According to Cisco, Internet of Everything is what happens when you combine the Internet of Everyone with the Internet of Things. Right now they're estimating 50 billion connected things or devices with 99% of things not yet connected presenting massive potential. So Cisco are predicting $14.4 trillion if private sector value is at stake globally over the 10 years from 2013 to 2022. What do they mean by Internet of Things? Smart devices equipped with sensors connected through the Internet. Probably pretty much everyone here has a smartphone. Does anyone not have a smartphone? Aw, bless. Coming up next, smart cars, driverless cars. I'm quite looking forward to a self-driving car. Smart houses, the house that knows when you're coming home what temperature you would like it to be, what time you get up in the morning, helps to wake you up in a pleasant way. Smart fridges, they know when the milks run out, from the supermarket. They adjust to based on the seasons. So we're creating this connected web of sensors and devices that are talking not just to us, but to one another. That wouldn't have been possible without a whole set of previous trends, mobile, cloud, Wi-Fi, globally compatible, connectivity, particularly SIM cards, sensors, seven of those per smartphone for the bulk of you who do have them, and big data works. Big data used to be a bit of a curse word in my team at archives. I had one great staff member who would swear every time big data was mentioned. I'm sure we'll be pleased to hear that's reached the peak of the Gartner hype cycle and is now heading down to the trough of disillusionment before moving into business as usual. The Internet of Things, on the other hand, is right up there this year, data science moving up fast. So, what are some of those aspects of Internet of Things? The quantified self is one. How many people have downloaded a fitness or health app onto their smartphone, tablet or computer? Yeah, not too bad, maybe half the room. How many are trying wearable technology, so Fitbits, SIM bands? How many want the Apple Watch when it comes out? Yeah, not that many. I think it looks kind of cool, you know, matches your outfit. Very popular technology already elsewhere, so over in California, straight after the Napa Valley earthquake a couple of months ago, visualizations were appearing up in the web showing the disruption to sleep patterns within a certain radius from the epicenter of the quake based on Fitbit and personal wearable health data. That ability to provide self-knowledge. Both knowledge of things that you might have thought you wanted to know, my heart rate, how many steps have I taken and things that you really didn't even know existed in your own biometrics. Track my cortisol levels. Sequence my DNA. See what microbial cells inhabit my body. Yeah, remarkable. Possible uses. I guess there's benefits at the individual level, that's why people are choosing wearables, including wearables in the form of glasses and shirts in the sports world. So you can improve your own health by knowing what's going on with it, eating healthily, improving your activity levels, monitoring your surroundings. You can also crowdsource outcomes for several million other people, prevent a stroke before it happens by monitoring what's going on with your body and communication with your physician. We could enable health research, track an epidemic, see what's happening with a public health issue, measure the impact of an event such as an earthquake. We could match that data with the data that's held in public sector health data stores and see what's happened over time for communities. But pretty tricky territory when it comes to privacy and how much it's really healthy to know. Another huge area of development is smart cities. Back when we had the Napier earthquakes in the 1930s, when we lost a sihi and rebuilt it with the technology that was considered most modern at that time. So beautiful art, deco-architecture, placing all of our electricity cables underground, partly to prevent risk, partly to create a cleaner city environment, wider roads, better for cars. We've got the same opportunity in Christchurch and there is the opportunity to lead in the creation of a sensing city for the future in the way that cities overseas have been developing. So people down there are thinking how can we install sensors in the new infrastructure, how can we create a connected city and it's already underway. So the cat size that will be installed on the roads in Christchurch, can they monitor the temperature, can they look at the air pollution, can they tell you exactly where you need grit in the winter, how much traffic has passed by, what the impact on the road is of that, what's happening with earthquakes, with aftershocks, where are the impacts strongest around town. So we've got sensors with sensors attached, being given to people who suffer from that condition are already tracking back to the hospital service and telling them how much medicine is being dosed out and where so that they can see what's going on with dust and pollution. Imagine if you take that and extend it to Auckland, apply it to some of our biggest transport problems nationwide. Here in Wellington they're talking about using sensing lights slightly easier and less intensive already in place if you weren't aware in major airports, if you're travelling through London Heathrow or from Newark, the lights can see who you are, see what you're doing, see what your temperature is. Wellington cities thinking maybe in suburban areas we could head in that direction would be able to know when to turn the lights on, what's happening with traffic, who's moving from an area of the city and it would be relatively straightforward to install. Primary industries it's my chance to use the word datification. It's one of my new favourites of the year. Datification brought to New Zealand by Josh Feast when he was out back in April is this pattern of attaching devices and smarts to things that previously you wouldn't have associated with them. So can we create an information industry that produces cows? Yes, actually it's already underway Silver Fern farms have been trialling it on several hundred of the farms that they work with tracking what's happening with the animals, tracking the other activities that go on around the animals, what's going on the pasture, what's the temperature, where should we irrigate, which animals received which medicine, how's their weight going, what's happening with different parts of production. Ministry of Primary Industries is looking at producing something called Smart Mark which would connect across a wide range of primary industries in order to meet compliance requirements in overseas markets but also to get a value add on New Zealand's product. If we can show that it came from this charmingly green farm somewhere in New Zealand and not from this nasty factory farm elsewhere, can we justify charging more for our product and shipping it that far? So Price Waterhouse Coopers put out a report this September that estimated that data-driven innovation added 67 billion to the Australian economy in 2013 alone. That would make up 4.4% of GDP, not insignificant that every sector in their economy is using data to grow from agriculture to health to mining but that there's substantial further room for growth so they were estimating 48 billion unrealised potential just in 2013. It's been a big area of emphasis at the World Economic Forum in Davos over the past five years or so and it's been picked up by the United Nations at global level when they're looking at sustainable development so now we've got terms like data philanthropy, data without borders data for development how do we connect the data scientists with people that need that capability how do we connect the people that need the data with rich data sources. International Experts Advisory Group on the Data Revolution back in September ran an online consultation in October released this report a few weeks ago really interesting to see how that's connected to some of the things that we've been doing in New Zealand so here Bill English big driver of this agenda and having come back in with renewed bigger determination to achieve things within the three-year window that our politicians have is now pushing alongside a set of other senior ministers to see data used to drive results particularly results for Kiwis in need so drive better social outcomes from his perspective as Minister of Finance what improves outcomes for individuals and families reduces the Government's bottom line so there's an economic incentive to do it so the three areas that ministers are focusing on that we've seen really strongly since the 25th of September around data use using data to decide where to focus how do we make evidence-based policy evidence-based decisions how do we identify priorities how do we measure what's working and by amplification what's not and stop doing the things that are not working they've put out a call for the private sector, for frontline service workers, for NGOs to come and give ideas to Treasury about what they would do to solve those problems better second, who to invest in which individuals will benefit most from social services investment if we focus on 10 mums can we change the outcomes for their children should we be specific third and closely related is frontline decision making so they've shifted from talking about big data to talking about small data joined up to enable people-oriented frontline services rather than services restricted to silos this is partly enabled by the integrated data infrastructure which I manage it's statistics New Zealand it's been building up progressively over the last 10 years or so managed under the tight restrictions the National Specialist Act so anonymised fully confidentialised before anything's released strong focus on privacy and security but in there we've got tax data fair proportion of our 4.5 million New Zealanders we can look at your employment at your earnings that's connected through to benefit data from MSD to education data from primary, secondary, tertiary we're just bringing in the first tranche nine national health collections, we've got migration and movement start here, an immensely powerful resource for finding out what's happening with the population and which services are delivering which results. This one's still relatively unreadable, even on such a magnificently large screen, but this is demonstrating what it looks like in the social sector using Mark E. Smith as a pseudonym. So how do you focus on the outcomes and on the people rather than on the service silos? Right now, each of these horizontal lines sits relatively separate in our systems because we've built them partly around legacy digital, partly around service and departmental silos, partly around privacy and security. That means that the education system won't necessarily know what's going on for a mark with child protection, which abuse findings they've been. The correction system may not know about the distance that Mark had in care through social development, income support, may not be aware of the educational outcome. This one's painting a pretty representative picture of the misery that hit some parts of the population in New Zealand. So what happens if you grow up in poverty? You have a pretty poor start in life. We've managed to get you into the education system. You've actually done a bit of NCEA level two and tertiary. That hasn't helped too much with your course. You've ended up in the prison system. Cumulative cost for one individual heading over 200,000 by the age of 20. This is the type of investment view that Minister of Finance is particularly interested in. So who owns all this data? Rick's given us some sense of the complications that happen when you try and look at it from a legal angle. But for the, just about 10 of you that had the Fitbit going on, you know, you're wearing that device. It's harvesting up to an app on your phone. Chances are the app's being run by a company overseas. Is it them? But now own the data about your heart rate, what's going on with your quarters old levels, whether you went for a run today or not. How many people bought a coffee on the way in this morning? Yeah, so more than with the health devices. Typical. When you bought the coffee, when you ordered your trim moccatino, large size takeout, is it the barista that owns the content of that transaction? Is it yourself because you ordered it? Is it the person who was standing behind you in the queue who happened to notice? There's a lot of people ordering those at the moment. That could be useful commercial information. If the coffee machine was hooked up to the internet and running as a smart device connected back to the whole sailor, is it them that own it? Very hard to define. Much easier to focus on use rights than ownership rights, which gets quite fascinating if data is such a strong commodity. So back at the beginning of 2014, the English and the Minister of Statistics established the New Zealand Data Futures Forum to look at the potential of data and also to think about the challenges, the risks, and promote a more realistic public debate. He specifically requested a mix of people, private sector, public sector, an independent chair. So this is what he got for his money. And a focus on future possibilities. So direct running instructions, not to be afraid to stir up some debate, to get in there, to think about things, to be forward-leaning rather than overly conservative. So the forum set out on its adaptive journey, producing three reports along the way. The first of them focused on the benefits, opportunities, risks, and challenges. The second, articulating a path forward, and the third, putting in place a set of recommendations for things that the country could do. So on that benefits side, we've talked around that quite a bit already. But everything from competitive advantage for New Zealand, if existing industries are going to go, how do we move forward? How do we make sure that our industries are well placed to get there, share of the pie in an innovative data-driven environment internationally? How do we become the Switzerland of data? Is possible? We've got the only Privacy Act in the Age of Pacific Region that's accredited, is adequate. We're ranked number one in Transparency International's Index for Lack of Corruption. So, you know, we're not too bad compared to other countries. There should be some advantage in that for us. It also spelled out some of the opportunities around better public services, better places to live, work, and play, transformation of everyday life, and open and transparent government. And then talked about the challenges, risks, intentions. So I think on this side, Privacy is usually first to come to mind. It's the how do we avoid any more cockups? What happened with ACC? What happened with EQC? Are we really that bad? So I think on that side, it's really mistakes that lead to lack of trust and confidence and potential harm for individuals. But there's also cases out there of invasive use, malicious use, marketing that can range from the merely annoying to quite disruptive target. John Whitehead who chaired the forum, visited the US while we were working and stopped in at the White House to talk to the people working on their big data and privacy 90 day task force. They were saying that retailers say they can identify the ethnicity of a person based on one purchase. I don't know which thing it is that I'm purchasing that would show that. But target got in trouble a year or so back with the father of a 15 or 16 year old girl for ascending stuff to the house that was promoting baby materials, things to help you out in pregnancy. My daughter's not pregnant. You've got to stop this. You've got it all wrong. Had to sneak back and apologise a few months later. Things going on that we hadn't realised based on the purchase of a hand cream. So Snowden, NSA, people's worries about GCSP, about intelligence and metadata fall into this space as well. Big brother, what is the borderline between the state and the citizen? How comfortable are we if our data is being used for particular purposes that government believes strongly are in the public good but that some individuals may see as not in that category. From a Maori perspective, when they look at a diagram like this, the first reaction is well, you're going to use that to risk profile who's going to fall into that category and then target those kids. Is ethnicity going to be one of the variables? Because normally it's one of the predictors of poor outcomes. What does that mean for how you're going to handle our kids? The forum went out on the road. We talked to New Zemindas, we talked to government, we talked to business, to academics, to non-governmental organisations, to Maori, to people working in the data innovation space. A pretty whistle stop tour over the top given the short time frame. But a number of consistent themes came through. Privacy. How much of my information does the government have? What are you doing on the digital divide? Often from the same people. Access. There should be free access to all government data. You guys should set up a website that shows me where I can go to get the government data. Pretty sure we did that. It was probably about five or six years ago. Clearly not that high a profile. The digital divide both in the sense of lack of access to technology but even more so lack of skills to navigate data. Lack of access to high level infrastructure and technology in order to run your own data. Thinking of Iwi and non-governmental organisations in that bracket. We also heard a huge amount about opportunities, about capability that the country wants to build and quite a lot of concern about data sovereignty. So people are thinking about the risks of Facebook of Google, of LinkedIn, of the agreements that only 25% of people say that they look at before they tick the box and I'm sure they can't possibly read all of it. So in that second paper the forum set out a path to navigate our data future with four guiding principles to take us forward so that we can harness the benefits of data used safely. Those principles were of value that New Zealand should use data to drive economic and social value, get the competitive advantage from data, treat data as a strategic asset, encourage collaboration and sharing, support creativity and innovation and promote our unique data use ecosystem in New Zealand and overseas. But they only get the benefit of that if you also have inclusion. All New Zealanders, communities and businesses should be enabled to adapt and thrive in this new environment. You'll need trust, transparency and openness, privacy, security and accountable stewardship of data. And we need a higher level of individual control even if the legal rights are there already. People should be able to determine the level of privacy that they desire based on improved insight into how their personal data is being processed and used, informed consent should be simple, easy to understand, not full of legal ease and people should have enhanced rights to opt out to correct. They're there in the law, how much we're giving them in practice. If we could get those four things working in sync, we reckon you could create a pretty positive feedback loop in a trusted data use ecosystem that if people felt that they were included in the benefits, that they could trust, that they had some control over things, then they think, well, it's pretty safe to share. I think I'll give you some more of my data. From that we'd derive enhanced value. People will think, wow, yeah, that's good. Let's keep going with that sort of a recipe for success. We also talked about which brackets different data fits in and what's appropriate to do for different organisations. I think this one we didn't quite nail. It's just not direct enough. Too complicated. But if you replace the wording in the top left-hand quadrant with something like coercive data harvesting and think that taking it without my permission, they're using it to target me. We think there are a small set of functions that deserve to be in that category. That's where crime prevention sits. That's where we're protecting individuals that need protection. Trying to stop child abuse. Trying to support the elderly. But in most cases even in Government we should be moving out of that quadrant. Getting either across to the right where the individual has the right to choose and ask them, is it okay if we take your data and mash it up with some data over here? Because then we could give you this better service offering. Or shift down into that section where data is not used to target a particular person. So that's where anonymised data like the integrated data infrastructure would sit. A lot of the data that we're talking about doesn't have to identify people. Even Stephen England Hall from Laugherty New Zealand who was on the forum was saying, well, we can do everything we want in terms of marketing without knowing that it's Mark. We just need to know it's a guy of a certain age. Really likes red wine. Has an interest in football. Let's send these things to that address. If it's cows that you're tagging there are no privacy implications in it. At least not yet. Maybe that's coming. The third paper that the forum issued set out quite lengthy series of recommendations and three clusters. So the big headlines were get the rules of the game right. How do we make sure that we've got the right protections when we're living in a technology fast, data fast law slow environment? How do we make sure that we're going to be agile, to be responsive, to be effective, to keep ahead of the curve with our regulation. So the suggestion there was to have an independent group of wise heads and experts who represent different communities in New Zealand advising Government and data users on the ethics of data use. What should we be doing in terms of social sector data sharing? I think the latest question that came up when I got independent privacy advice on IDI was how will you decide whether to put New Zealand's GenO in there or not, Evelyn? I thought, yeah, not be really good to have that independent separate group on questions like that. That sounds pretty gnarly and apparently is not far off in terms of developments in the health sector. That area, review the legislation, so it's pretty common sense that if you've got a whole set of legislation developed before we moved into this information environment that we could do better if we had something that was focused on the information environment that we live in now and that's more coherent. Second cluster create value by doing, be iterative, be agile, get on with it, get some projects underway, act fast with them fail fast if they don't work and learn from what you're doing and you'll be pleased to hear this little bubble on the lower right there called making the most of research data. Research and science data in New Zealand is pretty underserved. We've got a big asset sitting in that area that we're not making maximum use of particularly if it's publicly funded. Let's get on make it more available, manage it better, pull it together in ways that create new knowledge, but also in this area focus on primary industries, on using data and sharing it to empower Māori on data from the natural and built environment and some great suggestions of projects that are already underway or could be created in there that will bring together non-governmental organisations, private sector and government. Third we've got that progress and you've got the rules right. You need sustainable foundations. We need to look at how we grow the next generation of data scientists so that we're not short 1200 people within the next five years which is the figure that Curious at Spark were using when they set up earlier this year. We need to incentivise innovation we need to raise the public's level of understanding and awareness. We need to make sure that privacy, security and regulation are built into our systems and there's a big niche market growing up in that individual control space so a lot of companies getting up and running that sell themselves as personal information management bring together the strands of your information and help you to control it better. So look for some innovation on that side I was telling you we think before coming here about what all of this means for the glam sector and you're probably better placed to answer it I think NDF, you've been focused on digital for years now is this just more of the same? Is it something different? Perhaps for institutions there are three options so there's one about sit back and that others take the lead in terms of digital detox which has become quite the thing this year retro nostalgia, not me, I'm not going on Facebook, I'm not having a smart phone when I was living in Paris just down the road there was a little shop that specialised in umbrella repairs that's completely anachronistic and awful but it's really quite charming and nice as well could a traditional gallery museum or library provide a haven of respite from the world of digital? Could you be brave enough to do like the Otago Museum's done in keeping its natural history display looking like something from the 19th century? So actually we're partly memorialising where we've come from as well as looking at the future, I guess the other thing that would drive you in this space is being conservative being too worried about privacy, being too worried about copyright being too worried about resources not being willing to shift from resourcing one thing to another if you sit back, let others take the lead, chances are that if there's an opportunity someone else is going to take it, maybe that you become one of those closed shop fronts on Oxford Street, second option would be improve, this is in the continuous improvement leverage digital and data to improve your current functions and I see a huge amount of this going on in the glam sector create smart museums, integrating sensors and leveraging data like Moana and Tasmania and many others, use data analytics to understand your collections and holdings and your users, enable analytics through open access to your own platforms, seek to collect and preserve digital in addition to your current holdings, but in some ways everything in that category is, what we're doing already is pretty much okay, we can just make it better with digital. We'll take our existing mandate, our existing principles and direction, we'll adjust it just a little and that'll be our advantage. There must be a third category which would be fundamentally rethink your role and play a key part in the new data environment. This is where customer focus comes in, where design thinking comes in, true innovation, give people what they actually want. Really great to hear one of my heroes, Brewster Kale speaking on this side yesterday do what's needed, do what you know the country needs and what you know that they want and chances are nobody will complain, they may be quite pleased with what you provide for them. I think it's a little bit like seeing the worlds through the eyes of my eight year old, her top priorities in life right now are gaming, device and wifi access, tightly controlled in our household although I've just about given that one up and privacy I don't want you to see what I'm doing on the devices, mummy and daddy. So when we ran the test for her on which party she ought to vote for where she had to have the right to vote, internet mana came up at the top, it represents all of her interests. So clearly the internet archive is going to push her buttons, I'm going to show her their internet arcade once I can get it working on a tablet. The internet archive is an example of transformation of somebody else coming along and replacing a whole lot of things for example in the digital preservation space that the institutions that had the role and mandate weren't up for doing in the 1990s and 2000s showing that you can run a more ambitious business model take over the world. When I was up in an internet of things conference in Auckland last week they were talking about competition what do you do if somebody else comes along and has a better version of your product or service? Well either you shut up shop and go home or you buy that service. Don't try and improve yours if it's better, just move. So key messages, the future is now almost anything that you're thinking is going to happen in 10 or 20 years is already here. In that sense Dara and Digital are new to be the new black. Secondly feelings are mixed we need a robust data use ecosystem that includes trust, inclusion and control if we're not going to lose the public's confidence entirely and find that we get a backlash and everything shuts down. And third, one of the favourite phrases of John Whitehead who was chairing the forum was let's get on with it, make it work for New Zealand let's be clever kiwis, not possums in the headlight don't just focus on the risk, on the challenges on the reasons not to do something, focus on the potential and what we can deliver. We'll just take a couple of questions to Evelyn if everybody really has any burning things they'd like to ask Thanks Evelyn. It seems to me that whenever I've read the Data Futures information or seen presentations on it that the macro goals and issues are the same you could replace the word data and put heritage or record or information or in there and you'd still be dealing with those sort of hot topics, those guiding principles and those benefits and opportunities is that discussed in the Futures Forum, is that sort of broad information ecosystem sort of part of the discussions or is it data specific Yeah I guess to an extent I've toyed with it in my own mind, what's the difference between an archive, a record, publication, information, data had that conversation particularly on the legal side in the end I'm not sure that it actually matters I think with data the key characteristics that push it into new categories and potential is the machine readability, manipulability all of the side benefits that come from having things in digital form that weren't the primary purpose, you could say well that's what an archive's for, it's always been about secondary purposes just that in here the economic and social potential seem to be a little bit more tenable, easier to grasp, it's not something that happens 25 years after the fact Can I opt out of the idea if we knew who you were in there, possibly but the data is fully anonymised so an IDI we wouldn't be able to say, wouldn't be able to identify you based on your first name, your last name, your date of birth, unique IDs those are all stripped out at the point that the data is in there so it becomes essentially a different form of aggregate I guess the other aspect with IDI is that the data is provided by the creative parts of government so it depends to what extent you can opt out of those services, crime and protection not so much, other things to an extent but certainly one worth testing You and Rick have both talked about data and privacy and that kind of thing and I think society as a whole is being groomed towards wanting to wear devices and things that are actually giving out our information to unknown sources all the time It's heading towards implants now where you'll actually have implanted devices that send out information Do you think that in 30 to 50 years time privacy will be obsolete like that information is just going to be given from birth almost, if you barcode it at birth or you've got some kind of implant, you're not going to have any control whatsoever where that information is going, who's collecting it, I mean NSA recently were outed for spying on all kinds of stuff and things like that so do you think privacy will even be something that's viable in the future That's a fascinating question, so I think if you look at the research you'd say people's level of concern about privacy is heading up and some brackets at least, youth's concerns in New Zealand have gone up over the last couple of years, people in the South Island have become more concerned over the past couple of years, in particular people in Christchurch, like anyone who's here from Christchurch would have a fair understanding of why your concerns about privacy might have come up when you're living in a post-earth quake city and you're quite dependent on EQC and other services that you've fallen into that category that needs support On the other hand, online behaviour shows that people are sharing more and more, I think with privacy, generally if you took a room like this, I won't do it, and ask people how concerned they are and whether they're willing to have things shared for a purpose that's to their benefit, like health probably about 90% in New Zealand would say oh yeah, no I'm okay with that another 10% or 9% might say well I'm mildly concerned and I'd really want to know what you're doing and it would say no way, not my stuff, absolutely not having it and often that 1% or 2% who sit in that category have had very negative experiences with use of their information in the past might have immigrated here from a totalitarian stage, might have connections in that direction when we were out talking to people we found that Māori had about 30% or 40% less confidence than most others so what we talked to based on negative experiences with how their information has been collected and used over the last century or so so I think privacy and your sense of how important it is is very dependent on your personal experience and your level of trust, we're sitting in an environment right now where people's trust is going down in other countries based on the actions of Government and big corporates if you're corporate, if you lose somebody's trust you lose their patronage, they can go off and use a different service unless you're Google, if you're Government they don't get that choice so from the forums perspective would say you need a higher degree of regulation and protection where people don't have a choice and you need a higher degree of protection where people might not be that aware of what the risks are so having independent regulators is critical having a good up-to-date privacy act is critical those are also things that drive us in terms of being able to progress in New Zealand so no, privacy's not obsolete, it's just changing we reached Facebook a few years ago apparently when all the kids started to shift to Snapchat and Instagram and other things that didn't insist that they use their real name, it's not that surprising we might wrap up there, in the interest of everyone going to grab a coffee but please can we have another round of applause for everyone