 Alright everybody, here's Chris, Ali, Alien, about weaponizing cyber psychology. Alright, thanks for turning up. We're going to try a little something first, so if it fails, then it fails. We can just have some audio. I always wanted to do that, and public enemy couldn't make it. Well, I didn't actually ask them. We discussed this in the bar. Actually, the point of this, I'm digressing already, and I promise I wouldn't, is that if you like that kind of music, then that probably says you're sort of bold, energetic, very confident, maybe a bit brash, something like that. And if you fall into the category that doesn't like that, well, you know, it kind of depends whatever sorts of music you like. But that's kind of the point of our talk here today. It's around weaponizing cyber psychology, subverting cyber vetting, and really about a Facebook piece of research we did, looking at what your Facebook activity says about your personality traits. So there's three of us here talking today from a small fledgling volunteer organization called the Online Privacy Foundation. It's myself, Ali, an alien, who I'll introduce as we're going along. So some of you may have seen my talk here at DEF CON last year. My name's Chris Sumner, also known as Suggy, from when I was about eight years old, and on Twitter I've got the unfortunate handle that I wish I never had now of the Sugmeister. But I can't really change it. Although I've now got like almost a two-year-old boy, and when he gets a bit older, he's probably going to say, dad, you've got to change that. It is so lame, or whatever the word for lame is when he's 18. So we're going to talk about, well I'm going to talk, start us off with a quick introduction to personality trait theory. I believe the US, you know, you guys call it like personality 101 or whatever, the subject is 101. Then going to introduce us to our little Facebook experiment that we put together, our research project called the Big Five Experiment. Then going to bring Allie to the stage, who's going to talk about what she did with our statistics, all of the data from that experiment. And then we're going to get into what the title of the slide is really, you know, weaponizing cyber psychology. Work please. Okay, weaponizing cyber psychology. And that's sort of the uses and abuses that you can do if you're using this sort of information for decisions. And finally look at subverting or evading folks that might be trying to use personality derived through Facebook activity against you. So starting with personality 101, I'll give a quick intro as to how I got into psychology and personality in the first place. You see, like a lot of you guys, I was at university doing computer science. And if your university was similar to mine, there were a lot of people that looked a lot like this on your course. And I know before anyone says it, gee, Chris, where'd they get that nice photo of you? I actually probably didn't even look as good as that. So it occurred to me when I was at university, I learned one very important thing doing computer science is that if you want to meet chicks, then you need to be doing something like psychology or art or fashion or something like that. But actually there's something wrong with this picture. That's better. Hot chicks with hot pizza. Brilliant. But something curious happened doing psychology. I went on to do psychology at like adult education after I'd graduated from computer science. And it actually turned into a bunch of people that looked exactly like this except older, including me. And another curious thing happened is I didn't meet any girls, but I really enjoyed the subject. So I digress. As a starter for 10, if we look at psychology in terms of personality traits, it really started in Greece as just about everything seems to, with this dude called Theothraptus. And I dare anyone to try and say that at 11 o'clock in the morning, a long time ago, and what he was doing, he was going to parties that looked a lot like this in Greece. Because they also curiously invented the laser. So some awesome tunes banged there. And he was observing people and really looking at what drove some people to behave differently to others. So there's a whole train of personality traits, stuff that goes from there through all sorts of philosophers. But if we fast forward a bit to kind of the grandfather, if you like, of personality traits, it's this dude called Carl Jung. And the book on the right hand side there is really sort of a seminal piece on psychological types. That was the title of the book actually. And what he did is he looked at grouping people into certain traits. Obviously the Greeks had done that and his was kind of an extension from what the Greeks have done. I'm not going to talk about his work too much other than that he strongly influenced these two who were called Myers Briggs. So actually it's a mother and daughter team, Catherine and Isabelle. And they were fascinated by Jung's work and looked at how they could apply that in a sort of a practical manner. So they developed really a kind of a questionnaire, if you like, of like putting people into certain characteristic slots. So you don't need to know too much about what I'm about to share. But if you just leave here thinking, okay, these are the traits, I can go and read up about them later and that's kind of fine. So they grouped people into introverts and extroverts. They also split those people into censors and intuitors and into folks who are judges, perceivers and thinkers and feelers. So they got this kind of matrix going on, which you could also look at like this. And this is one of the major criticisms of Myers Briggs, which some of you may have been exposed to in your organizations, corporations, is that it tends to pigeonhole people if it's used incorrectly. So it can be used not incorrectly, but a lot of corporate types especially tend to really misinterpret how to use Myers Briggs and end up categorizing people. So for an example, if we look at just introverts and extroverts, which most people are kind of aware about anyway, you've got this neat graph where you've got introverts and extroverts across a spectrum with people high in introversion to the left-hand side and people high in extroversion to the right-hand side. What Myers Briggs does if it's used incorrectly is it kind of splits those right down the middle. So either introvert or extrovert, it doesn't make any real account for those people who are kind of in the middle. Further, it can change over your lifetime. And I think there was a study that basically cited something like 24 to 40% of people change personality types in Myers Briggs. But it's not to be dismissive of Myers Briggs, it's just to say that it can and has been used wrongly quite a lot. So when we conducted this experiment, we looked at something called the Five Factor Model, also called Ocean. And it's called Ocean because it looks at personality traits like openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness and neuroticism. So let me just explain briefly what those things are so that you'll know what we're talking about when we look at the data. So this is the crazy scientist from Back to the Future. We chose him as representing openness because he's a creative thinker, a deep, curious sort of fellow who's liable to try lots of different things out in his life in stark contrast to somebody who's low in openness. If you don't know who this is, it's the Stepford Wives. They're unlikely to do anything wild and wacky and they're probably the sort of people that go into restaurants and order the same stuff every time they go rather than trying something new. The next trait is conscientiousness, these overachieving, timekeeping people that seem to plague my life. Or you could look at it as the Robocop dimension, part man, part machine or cop. Robocop is task focused. If you need anything doing, Robocop is probably your man in contrast to Uncle Buck. Uncle Buck is kind of a scatty sort of dude. Actually he kind of comes good in the movie so we could argue that it's not the greatest thing but I kind of like John Candy so I wanted to put that in. But you probably wouldn't leave him, I don't know with your kids or your laptop or whatever of those is more important to you. And the same could be said about this dude as well as on my personal hero is Ferris Bueller who represents extroversion, he's incredibly energetic, social outgoing, really the life and soul of a party. And I think in contrast to Milton from the office, the office space, my apologies, who's probably more interested in staying in and shining his stapler, that's not a euphemism, then going to parties. I didn't do that in the dry run actually. Then we've got agreeableness and I chose Forrest Gump because Forrest Gump is kind and considerate, very trusting individual. I mean there's not many people that run back into the jungle to pick up Bubba but Forrest you could, he's kind of kind, sympathetic sort of dude that would do that and then go and see his folks in contrast to Gordon Gekko who is low in agreeableness, greed is good and that is something that also we see and we talk a little bit more about in relation to CEOs and what have you. Then the final dimension that we're looking at really is neuroticism, this is Woody Allen, he's sort of an anxious, fretting, worrying sort of dude in contrast to another personal hero. It's the dude from the Big Lebowski and I share something with him is my love of white Russians but he's not going to get easily ruffled, that's for sure. Where are we kind of going with this? Well the Myers-Briggs, these people here love Myers-Briggs and most of them or a lot of them, I don't have too much empirical evidence on how many of them actually know what they're talking about but a lot of them don't but they think that they do. Not only that, they use that for pre-employment screening. There's a lot of research out there about how many personality tests use in pre-employment screening and what have you. Now what we're beginning to see is the introduction of something called cyber vetting. Okay, so what we've seen are companies like this that are cropping up, social intelligence, HR, that will actually look at what's called your net rep or online reputation to see whether you're a suitable candidate for a role. Actually I started off being really skeptical about this organisation but the more I looked at it, I think the more they do a pretty decent job at what they're doing. I'd sooner have these guys looking at my online behaviour than having some untrained corporate person trying to do that for them because they seem to regulate themselves a lot better. Anyway, I digress further. I was flying to Austin in Texas last year and I found myself at the self-help section, the airport, the self-help in the bookshop at the airport. Is that just me or what? Anyway, how to improve your life and be on time for stuff. I picked up this book by a gentleman called Sam Gosling and he wrote a book called Snoop and it's about what your stuff says about you, how your rooms and your spaces, what that really says about you. For example, if you've got a messy bedroom, for example, you're probably low in conscientiousness but just because it's neat doesn't mean you're high in conscientiousness. What we'd really have to do is see that being repeated time and time again. You might tidy up your room in some mad spring clean but then it gets messy again after a few days. That doesn't mean you're high in conscientiousness but in his book he alluded to a growing of research around social media and personality traits and that's what kind of spied some inspiration and also got me kind of worried because you've got personality tests that are used in corporate vetting, pigeonhole people if you like. You've got corporate types that love to use it but really pretty clueless for a lot of them. You've got an explosion in social media and now you've got cyber vetting coming up. That gave us a crap moment. Now people can tell who I am without actually meeting me which was a bit of a concern. A friend of mine who I saw co-founded the online privacy foundation with we're in the pub having a beer and discussing this actually we ended up having a few beers and we came up with let's do this Facebook. We can do this on Facebook. It would be a good opportunity to learn how to use Facebook and we came up with the Big Five experiment as a Facebook application that we used that took in as actually over 150 data points made up of 74 Facebook data points which was to our knowledge the largest study of its kind and we also used something called linguistic inquiry and word count which looks at not just the points but the type of language that you're using in your Facebook activity, your comments, your photo descriptions, your profile and what have you. If you're new to this, this is a UK election and they analysed linguistics from the speakers and you ended up here with this chap Nick Clegg who it says is the most vague so there you can see linguistics being used in I guess a practical context. Now we had a bit of a problem with our application because we wanted to grab quite a bit of data. Here is the application that you probably all love to hate. It's called Farmville if you can't see it at the back and this is what it asks for and that's what we asked for and we asked people to trust us to handle their information appropriately so we had a bit of an uphill battle but we were kind of able to work beyond that through successfully marketing and building trust and we ended up with a relatively good sample set. However, it turns out my drunken mate and myself, actually I shouldn't have said that, didn't have enough information to know what to do with statistics so we managed to recruit statistics ninja although she doesn't like that phrase so I'd like to welcome Ali B to the podium please. Big hand for Ali B. Hello everyone I am the resident stats expert with the team and what I'm going to do for the next 15 minutes or so is talk you through a little bit about what we did with the data that we had, some of the decisions we made about what to do with that data, talk you through the results that we found and also try and apply this to what it actually means in the real world. So the first thing we had to do we did this, we had all this data on your Facebook activity and your personality type and so we needed to come up with some hypotheses as to what we thought the data would show us so our null hypothesis was that there'd be absolutely no relationship between these two things and our alternative hypothesis was that there would be a correlation or relationship between your personality and your online activity and so the data really we had to get it to show one or the other so what I did next just to familiarize myself with the data I looked at some of the demographics so we've got the country of registration where people lived when they registered for Facebook so as you can see the vast majority of our participants were from Great Britain and now the United States which probably reflects our exposure in those countries where we flied, where we advertised and where we could get word of mouth going really. This doesn't actually reflect the Facebook split I believe the top four countries are the United States, Indonesia, India and Great Britain in that order so it's not exactly representative but this is what we got. In terms of age and sex just over two-thirds of our participants were female which again is not really reflective of the Facebook population because that's more 50-50 split albeit slightly in favor of the females but this two-to-one ratio has also been found in other studies to do with online personality testing so perhaps it represents a tendency in females to be more likely to respond to this kind of study. In terms of age groups that's pretty much representative of the online Facebook population so at least we know in terms of age groups a good break-up of the data. So before I go on unfortunately I'm going to have to do a little bit of housekeeping with you guys. A lot of what I'm going to talk about in the next few minutes is to do with the normal distribution and standard deviations so apologies if you already know this but if you don't know it I'm not going to make sense to you in the next few minutes. So the normal distribution is a pattern of the distribution of data that follows this bell-shaped curve and one of the characteristics of a normal distribution is that the mean median and mode the three measures of an average are all the same value that's this central white line right in the middle so a normal distribution is actually perfectly symmetrical and a second point is we use a measure called the standard deviation to measure the spread of the information across that bell curve and a normal distribution has a property such that 68% of all the values in that distribution fall within one standard deviation of the mean, 95% will fall within two standard deviations and just over 99% will fall within three standard deviations and you can see that illustrated here with the different gradient shades of blue. So after figuring out who was in our sample I then had to take a look at the actual results the actual data that we got and figure out how to analyse that. If you're interested I used this statistical package SPSS to do all my analysis and firstly I used SPSS to create measures of the mean, median, standard deviation minimum maximum values and also two measures called skewness and kurtosis which are measures of the actual shape of the data and then I also created histograms of that data to make sure I could really fully visualise what the data looked like. So here's an example. This is the number of posts our sample made in February 2001 and as you can see here it's a highly skewed distribution it's absolutely no way this is normally distributed as opposed to this distribution which is the personal pronouns that people use in their Facebook posts and as you can see this kind of has the potential to satisfy a normal distribution but we're not quite sure so we need to do some further tests to find out whether it can be reasonably assumed that it satisfies a normal distribution. So I used SPSS again to calculate Komagrov Smirnov tests of normality which tests the data to see if it can be reasonably assumed that it fits a normal distribution. Unfortunately with the tests I performed it showed that none of our data points could be considered to be normally distributed so that was a bit of a bummer but why is this important? Why am I banging on about distributions and normally shaped distributions? Because when you're doing a correlation analysis there are two main different types of analysis that can use one of them is the Pearson's test and one of them is the Spearman's test now Pearson's is better we like Pearson's because it looks at the actual magnitude and or difference between two data points whereas Spearman just has a rank value so it's just first, second and third regardless of the difference between them so we really want to use Pearson's but the only problem with that is we can only use Pearson's test on data that is normally distributed and that has a linear relationship between two variables so it was a bit of a bummer that none of our variables were normally distributed but we do have an exception to the rule in the central limit theorem which states that with sufficiently large sample sizes all samples tend towards the normal distribution so if we wanted to we could use that as a get out of jail free card and go ahead and use the Pearson's test but I ended up not doing that and there are three main reasons for this firstly our Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests of normality showed that none of our data was normally distributed so that kind of reinforced the non-normal nature of them secondly we don't know anything about the underlying population so for example I have no idea about the distribution of neuroticism amongst Facebook users and I'm pretty sure no one else really does either so if the underlying population isn't normally distributed I'm not really comfortable in saying that the sample we took was normally distributed and third and finally with sufficiently large sample sizes and we had a sample of 537 which in statistical terms is pretty good so with sufficiently large sample sizes the Spearman's test is only slightly less powerful than the Pearson's so in this case I would rather have aired on the side of caution and get results that we can actually count on rather than risk using an inappropriate statistical test so our study was a correlation analysis looking at big 5 personality traits and our Facebook activity now one thing it's really important to remember with correlational studies is that correlation does not necessarily mean causation for example there is a very high correlation between ice cream sales and shark attacks but it doesn't mean that eating ice cream is going to make you get eaten by a shark it means there's a third variable there the weather or the temperature that we haven't measured which affects both of those things and also there's not there could only be one extra variable or there could be two extra variables or three extra variables you can't measure everything so you can't assume that just because there's a correlation between two things so that's the reason for the increase so I'm going to talk you a little bit through our results now the statistically significant results of our study indicated that people with higher levels of openness tended to use words more to do with negative emotions and anger and they'd also be more open to talking about potentially taboo subjects like money, religion and death they'd also write more about themselves in their bios and they'd give a lot more information about their hobbies and their interests opposed to that people with lower levels of openness tend to use shorter sentences and talk a lot less about their family people with higher levels of conscientiousness tended to be older, they'd use proper words dictionary words and they'd talk a lot more about their family and use language about centered around positive emotion and inclusion conversely people with higher levels of conscientiousness tended to talk a lot more about death tended to swear a lot more and tended to use a lot of angry words and words to do with negative emotion people with high levels of extraversion tended to have a lot more friends on Facebook they tended to post a lot more photos and a lot more comments and they used words to do with friends and friendships and used a lot more words to do with positive emotion and ascent and conversely they had a lot less books listed on their Facebook page in terms of agreeableness our results showed that people with higher levels of agreeableness use a lot longer sentences but they also use non-fluencies like ear or arm so that could account for the longer sentences they also tend to be older, they'd have more friends on Facebook and again they'd post a lot more photos and comments and we actually found no negative correlations with agreeableness at all in terms of neuroticism people who scored highly in neuroticism tended to post a lot more photo albums they tended to have a lot longer posts and they'd swear more they'd use words to do with negative emotion including anxiety, anger and sadness and again we found no negative correlations with neuroticism so I've talked a lot about stats and statistical significance and what you probably really want to know is so what what does this actually mean in the real world but unfortunately to explain this I do have to go back to the stats so calculating a correlation analysis in SPSS looks like this so this is what I get and this is what's called the p-value and this refers to our hypothesis so to remind you our null hypothesis said that there was no relationship whatsoever between personality and your Facebook's activity and our alternative hypothesis stated that there is a relationship there whatever that relationship might be so the p-value states that if the null hypothesis is true if there is no relationship between these variables the p-value is the probability that we can obtain a result at least as extreme as the one we found in our study so basically it's the probability that the null hypothesis is correct so if it's how it if it's as small as it is here it's less than 0.001% so we can reasonably say that it's so unlikely that there's no relationship there we can just discount the null hypothesis and accept that there is a relationship there but all that tells us is the probability we've made the right decision but it doesn't tell us anything about what that relationship is or how strong that relationship is so to figure this out we need to look at this value which is the r-value or the correlation coefficient now in statistical analysis what you really want is the value as close to 1 or as close to minus 1 as you can possibly get because this indicates a really strong relationship so already intuitively you can see here although it's highly statistically significant the number itself is only 0.24 which you can already tell it's maybe not that strong so what we need to do with this value is square it and that'll give us our correlation, our coefficient of determination which is the percentage of variance or fluctuation in one variable that can be explained by the other variable so if we square this number you get approximately 0.05 and that translates to 5% so 5% of a person's extra version can be determined by how many friends they have on Facebook so in a nutshell statistical significance indicates that we're valid in stating there is a relationship there but it doesn't indicate the strength of that relationship and a result can be statistically significant but can only explain a very small amount of variance in the data and that's me done so with that I shall hand back to Chris so Ali explained this to me again in a bar and I was like well I can see your lips moving but I just can't understand the word you just said so we applied it to a Vega strategy and basically what we're saying is that the results will give you an edge not a massive edge or stated another way if you want to make an educated bet and a highlighted bet then you'd be crazy to bet against those odds so you know the point is that yeah it does show a relationship but of what practical significance is there and that was I guess one of the titles we looked at for the talk but since it was DEF CON it was like ah practical significance who's going to turn up let's call it weaponizing so one of the things we've looked at once you can determine or have an educated guess about people's personality traits so there are studies for example that show links or correlations between people with high openness and their susceptibility to online marketing in fact on the plane over here there was a guy I was chatting to who was talking about the use of color in images to get certain demographics clicking on particular links so that was pretty interesting but there are studies that show this so if you're an advertiser and the consequences aren't so bad then determining people who have got higher openness you may want to target your ads at them more than people who have got lower openness and if you want to see something pretty neat if you go to wefeelfine.org you can see this used in kind of a sentiment analysis of people's blogs and tweets and stuff like that and it's really pretty neat and it's worth going to have a look at it for but as we have discussions in pubs kind of turned to looking at well what could you do with online dating so for example if you are looking at a potential mate's Facebook page you may be able to determine whether there's a slight chance that they may be slightly more high maintenance for example or somewhat more promiscuous in fact there's a book that Sam Gosling references in his book Snoop called The Rachel Papers by Martin Amis where the central character of that kind of adapts his personality and what have you to get the girl so this could you know this could work well in theory until you actually try and apply it and actually meet the person in real life there's a kind of dating rule that's well known is that you can only really date between plus or minus two of your potential match unless you've got something to trade with like a large bank account status or something like that so unfortunately in this case you you're not going to get too far but if you don't intend to meet them and you're conducting say a romance scam for example then it could be quite useful to you because you're not using your own picture anyway so looking at this we're also okay well what other studies are there that are out there whatever information is out there and now agreeableness is associated with gullibility as well so let's say you're conducting some social engineering maybe you're using your favorite tool for trawling a wide range of social network profiles maybe Montego if anyone sort of taught last year it might be useful to know who the people who are more agreeable in a group are and target them first because they're likely to be somewhat more gullible than the others and I guess the key point is remember that this is a bet it doesn't mean they are going to be more agreeable it means that you've got a slight edge just selecting people at random so in terms of social engineering it's a useful tool for a social engineer's toolkit I guess unless you're Kevin Mitnick and you know it's kind of hard wired into you so I don't know if anyone saw I guess you all did the HB Gary stuff earlier this year well there was a lot of articles written about that and this term came up sock puppets I've never really heard of before but it's essentially the practice of having fake personas lots of fake personas on social network sites and having them do all sorts of you know fun things and to really explain what some of those fun things are here's something I really recommend going and checking out on Google is by a guy called Tim Huang who conducted a competition called social bots 2011 where they had teams kind of like capture the flag going basically controlling these sock puppets that they've created on Twitter and going after unsuspecting Twitter users trying to make them do things they wouldn't ordinarily do and they'd score points for that it's a five minute video and it's well worth checking out so I guess I'll be doing that that next year too so with that I'm going to introduce Alien out of the podium to talk about subverting and evading so hi there as you can see I'm Ergun I co-run Defcon London with Major Malfunction I also run 44con a thing that's happening in London later this year so why did I get involved well really subverting and evading you know as examples manipulation are really quite interesting I've done it using in social engineering on a couple of jobs and when I saw that the press were starting to get involved and they come up with crash statements like this that are just wrong I start to worry not just the Washington Post ABC were at it as well if they're coming to this conclusion that you can use Facebook as a personality test you've seen from Alice Data it gives you a slight edge but you really cannot rely on it so if they're looking at things like openness one thing that's linked to openness is drug use so you're going for an interview they think you're open they're going to put you in the pocket of the possible drug use as well that's just not right the other issue is that they go into a bit more detail it's not just openness you end up with narcissism psychopathy and macinavagery vanuatism which are known as the dark triad now if you've got the CEO of a company these are the traits of a CEO this is why you're not CEOs guys you're just too open you're just too open so you want to subvert this so the first thing is you've got to know your enemy you start trying to play with your personality types willy-nilly and it could get a bit messy so there's one really quite easy thing you could do just don't do social networking I mean it's not hard right now you think this would be a common thing but I actually only know a few people that aren't really involved with social networking and one of them is actually on Twitter which they don't class as social networking and the other one is on LinkedIn so you know the Facebook for businessman it also leads to trouble you generally link your online activity to your job real life activities if you play the job of say one email address for friends and one email address for family that's great until you marry someone that was a friend and they use the wrong email address when replying to your mother it's tricky to separate your life and I'm one example of this I've used the online Nick Alien since 1982 I'm running a conference in the press release we want businessman at the conference do you think alien? No so next year if you look on the Defcon helping thing I'm probably the only goon there using my Nick next year I'll be using my real name so you want a dick with this subverting this personality thing let's play with language so we were drinking some Guinness stuff and I said well we all know how good Google translators and Babel Fish let's translate our data that's going into the social networking side wrap it through a few languages and pop it out again because that leads to gobbledygook well it did work but a swear word in English actually when you translate it is still a swear word in French and part of the lexical analysis was looking at swear words in all languages so we're screwed but just don't bother so tweaking your personality you can link desirable personality traits to a particular type of job so you've got openness here that is quite a large range of acceptable values I think you've got extrovertism that's actually a much narrower range now this is great but how do you know what to say that would influence these values and with a bit more Guinness we actually came up with this how about if we wrote an app that you put your status message that you want to actually do you then tweak the sliders so I want this really open or really extrovertism and then we pop out the status message afterwards now that would be really cool so if you're going to go away and write this negative comments please there's the license and second we need a copy because we've got to give it to Ali because we've actually got to work out whether your correlation of this data is correct and as you've seen that's not necessarily trivial so the last possible thing that we could really think of is let's play with some pills psychotrophics great fun a lot of research has happened in Russia and not so much in the western world except for things like prozac the problem with something like prozac is your base level that you start at is very variable because prozac is thrown out like smart is it seems so you're not going to end up with a nice correlated set of results and Ali will chew your ass so yeah forget it and it's now back to Chris thank you so it gets wrapped up here that's the area there of looking at mental health in particular and the correlations to facebook activity is something that has not had as far as I can tell any research and I think would be a very interesting project to work through so where are we kind of going with this well here's the thing that really concerned me is that you're on social networks you know maybe you are in college your digital stuff lasts forever I know if I had my pictures and activity from facebook when I was 18 I probably wouldn't be in employment now and it doesn't get spent it's always there so if people are going to be trawling that then we've got a problem especially if they're going to be trawling that and jumping to incorrect conclusions so what we're not saying is that there is no link here between facebook and personality what we're hoping the message is is that yes there is a link but don't use it on its own for basing critical decisions so you know we thought about it very briefly what can you do here is okay cyber vetting you could probably apply some regulatory control and we all know how well PCI has worked so I'm not sure that that would work particularly well in cyber vetting plus if I'm told don't go and take a look at somebody's social media profile or online reputation as a manager I just say okay I won't and then I'll go and do it anyway I'm not a manager but the kind of thing it could have what would appeal for folks though is really to embrace people's differences you know the edges where the really cool stuff happens so you know kind of being a bit more open to people's differences and the final thing I guess for you guys really is that where you see these statistics in the newspapers saying that facebook can reveal your personality question and challenge what it says because those articles stem from a piece of research that did not say that this can be used in this context the newspapers grasped onto that so question and challenge everything where you see statistics so we've looked at an intro to personality hopefully very briefly we told you about our facebook app Ali told you about statistics and blew my mind we talked about briefly you know how you can use that information for good and for bad possibly we talked about how you might hide it you know hide from it and then we talked about kind of what you can do so this really kind of concludes our talk almost just want to bring alien to the podium for one final comment before we wrap up okay so this one's kind of personal you've probably heard about barcode he's got a pretty nasty disease his bone marrow is screwed it's killing his red blood cells he's having he's basically living on transfusions so if you're a US citizen your last chance to give blood is 1900 today please please do it the second thing is again if you're a US citizen please go to the contest area and get tested for your bone marrow because that's the only hope of really curing what he's got the reason we can't do it by the way is us Brits have all got mad cow disease so don't ping him with emails twitter etc look at barcodestatus.tumblr.com and if all this isn't a good enough reason to do it so damn well do it thank you thanks very much