 Thanks. All right, I have a two-part question. It's an academic setting, so I have to ask. Someone has to ask a two-part question. So Director Ray, historians have documented that FBI's troubled historical relationship with civil rights activists and minority communities, for example, surveillance campaigns against black activists like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X in the 1960s and Arab-American communities post 9-11. And students were asking, does this history still affect the FBI's relationship to minority communities in the present? And what has the agency done to address that legacy of distrust? That's part one. Part two is, are there ways in which that history has informed the FBI's efforts to balance in the contemporary moment the deterrence, for example, of cybercrime on critical infrastructure, to balance that against potential harms to public trust that can come from large-scale data surveillance? And if so, what mechanisms are at place in order to try to balance that relationship? Well, let me pick your questions in reverse order, if I can. So on the cyber part of your question, I appreciate the opportunity to make something pretty clear. We are not, and we don't, engage in large-scale monitoring on companies' networks and infrastructure or in the universe. That's not what we do. There are people who think, and I hear from them sometimes, and a lot of thoughtful people who think we should be able to do that, but we don't and we can't. So we may not actually know in the cyber context that somebody's been victimized unless they come forward. And so the reason why it's important for me to answer that part of your question is we need people to come forward, because otherwise we may not actually know about the cyber attack that occurs. There is now legislation that's passed that's going to improve the reporting of cyber activity, which will help. There are times when we're following a bad guy, like a Russian hacker, for example, and then we find them on some university or company's network, and they didn't know about it, and then we're coming to tell them, hey, guess what? Guess who's in your system? But we're not, the notion that we're engaged in large scale data surveillance, mass gobbling up of data in the cyber arena is largely overblown, so I really appreciate the opportunity to address that, not just because of the accuracy of the concern, but more importantly because if people think, oh, we've got all that information anyways, we can just sit back and let the FBI tell us when we've been hit, then we've got a real problem. To the other part of your question, involving Dr. King and some of the other mistakes that we've made over the years, the FBI is a gigantic organization, it's been around for 114 years, and like any giant organization's been around for that long, we've made mistakes, and we've made some doozies of mistakes, that's a technical term, but I think what distinguishes the most high performing organizations in the world is not whether they've made mistakes or not, because I would argue any organization that big that's been around for that long has made mistakes, it's what we learn from those mistakes, and I'm actually very proud of the things that the FBI has learned from some of its mistakes over the years, so let's take the Dr. King example in particular. We now have, I mentioned earlier how I'm having all agents and analysts in their training go to the 9-11 Memorial, but what I didn't mention is there are two other visits that they make as well, each for different purpose. They visit the Holocaust Memorial Museum in D.C., and they get to see what happens when law enforcement essentially fails to protect its people, and they visit the Dr. Martin Luther King Memorial, the monument, and there's a whole class that's fought around the Dr. King Memorial that talks about specifically what the FBI did wrong under then Director Hoover and Assistant Attorney General Bobby Kennedy at the time, where they've signed off on a wiretap with almost nothing, and if you compare that to what we do now, where the scores of eyes, the pages and pages of detail and rigor that get built into it, it's like night and day by comparison, but the whole class is an opportunity not just to focus on the importance of rigor and objectivity and not letting our biases affect our work, but it's also an opportunity to have very healthy discussions about things like race, about bias, about avoiding even the appearance of bias and things like that, so that's part of it. We also have a much more robust, conscious part of our strategy is focused on community outreach, so every FBI field office has a dedicated community outreach specialist whose sole job is to try to engage with groups in the community. We also have similar versions at the headquarters level with the national civil rights organizations and major advocacy groups and things like that, and we're very proud of some of the partnerships we've built both locally, all over the country and nationally in that regard, and then diversity is an important part of it, and I'm very proud of the fact that the FBI is more diverse at every grade level today than it was four years ago when I started. Not where we need to be, I don't wanna mislead anybody in that regard, but we've made significant strides and we're gonna keep making them. I think all of that is part of the learning from the mistakes of the past.