 So, I've learned all sorts of things today. I've got a whole new vocabulary. I've learned about bug bounties, offensive and defensive markets. I had a definition of what that meant, but I don't think it's what I now think it meant. Security paternalism, lots of other phrases. I've learned about new jobs. I was actually tweeting this out. You can get a job as a privacy analyst. You can get a job as a penetration tester, which was a new one to me. One of the things that came out just broadly from a professional side is information security as itself, an emerging profession with lots and lots of subparts in information security, not cyber security, information security, and how we think about that much more broadly. How we think about information. The things I learned is really the ways in which information is both an input and a product. That wasn't so surprising, but the ways in which information itself, if gathered and connected at a sufficient speed, can become a weapon and how we think about that in the context of cyber security. The idea that unlike the traditional security or warfare, you can't defend ours and listen to theirs, that you actually have to make a choice which way you want to go, was something I had never thought about in those terms. I did not know that we were in the age already of the third crypto war, or at least past the second crypto war, which was news to me. Every company is becoming a technology company. Yes. That's something I think we think about in economic terms, but maybe less so in terms of security issues. Complexity breeds insecurity, but there does not have to be a trade-off between usability and security. That point was made at the first panel and by Alex Stamos here at the last, that an insecure product is not actually a usable product. That's not the way we normally think about those two issues. Lots of other insights I tweeted or actually buffered as many as I could. I'm not sure if buffered is a verb, but that's what I was doing. Just more broadly, it's been exactly the kind of conference we wanted to have. I started out this morning by saying we wanted to bring lots of different disciplines together, different sectors together. We wanted people to be listening to voices they don't usually hear. I think really over the course of the day, you had panels focused on individual security, on organizational security, on national security, on international security. You had lots of people who I don't think are often in the same room, at least judging by the questions. This is actually part of an ongoing conversation for New America. This was our first conference, but it will be an annual conference. I should say here, great thanks to our principal sponsor, the Hewlett Foundation, which really made this day possible and New America's work in this area. It's an ongoing conversation in the sense that we're putting together a national network of cyber fellows who will be writing papers and engaging on these subjects, both national and an international cyber network. We have media partnerships with future tents, with Slate and Arizona State University called Future Tents, with a new set of podcasts with the Christian Science Monitor, and then in connection with the Future of War Project, which we will, our future war conference is here tomorrow and Wednesday, that with the Atlantic and the Defense One channel on the Atlantic, and of course with CNN, which was live streaming a good bit of today. So we'll be doing more research and advocacy with networks, with media partners, and with other events. In addition to the annual conference, we will have a policy business round table and want precisely to continue a lot of the mutual interrogation that you heard today. Before I close with one final reflection, I do want to thank people. I could really, I would end up thanking pretty much all of New America if I listed all the people who've had to do with this conference. But let me start by saying any conference, we want to thank our incredible events team, our media team, our development team, our digital production and audio visual team. They're the folks that put any of our conferences together and they're superb and you've seen them all outside. In addition, pretty much half the Open Technology Institute staff was drafted and the International Security Program were drafted. But the folks who really put this conference together conceptually, and I'm not reading either alphabetically or in order of contribution, simply in order of names, but Rob Morgas, Kevin Bankston, Peter Singer, Liana Simons, Alan Davidson, Peter Bergen, Emily Schneider, Jenny Lou Malamo, Tim Maurer, Robin Green, Andy Wilson, and I have to say Ian Wilson who joined us two weeks ago but finds himself there, sorry, Ian Wallace finds himself and we're thrilled to have him, but we put on a conference just to welcome him. So I do want to ask you to again join me in a round of applause for everyone who's put this together. So just a final thought. So the cyber domain, the idea of this domain, a domain, in the internet we know that, a domain name, it's a separate world, right? I used to be Edu and now I'm Org, and for a while I was Gov, right? So we think of domains as discrete territories. And yet the message today really is that the cyber domain is our entire world. It's our military world more and more, it's our economic world more and more, it's our social world more and more, and our political world more and more. It is effectively just as much of our world as our physical world is. And if that's right, then cyber security, what's that cyber doing there? Cyber security just means security. It means the security, our military security, our economic security, our social security, it means security in the same way that I would use that word in ordinary speech. And we heard that, and we heard it indeed right at this last panel. It's like you'll really be getting there when you drop the cyber. So we get that, maybe. Because I've rarely seen an area of policy that is as separated out into silos as this one. As we started out this morning, the military cyber folks talk to each other, the privacy cyber folks talk to each other, the civil libertarians folks talk to each other. But very rarely do we have a conversation that really engages. It engages in on the tough questions and the trade-offs, as people said, not just information sharing, but where it really is a conflict. Between how we are going to overcome a digital divide or how we are going to protect ourselves against persistent threats national or international and how at the same time we're going to provide social and economic justice and access to the cyber realm. So I leave with that thought that I come away simultaneously realizing just the magnitude of security in a world in which cyber is at least half or more of our world. And the absolute imperative of making sure there are more than, what did Nate Fick say, 5,000 people out there, maybe you could hire. And if I think about policy students who really understand technology or engineering students who really understand policy, having come out of the university, it's a very, very small number. So this conversation has to continue, but we also have to make sure many, many, many more people in this town and across the country know what we're talking about. Thank you very much.