 So we have two people on stage who have been working at the intersection of public policy and digital security for a long time When I was going through your bios I noticed that you all started working on these issues in Washington at about the time that Steve Jobs was starting up again An apple for his second tour of duty. So you've been out this for quite a while To my left is Michael that is in 1998 correct me if I'm wrong you became the founding director of the National Infrastructure Infrastructure Protection Center at the FBI in addition. He's been the associate deputy general in the Excuse me associate deputy attorney general in the Department of Justice where he worked on national security and special counsel at the Department of Defense He's now a partner at Steptoe and Johnson in New York City And I just give you all that detail to to again reiterate that you've been working on this in depth for quite some time To Michael's left is Peter Swire In 1999 Peter became President Clinton's chief counsel for privacy in the Office of Management and Budget He was the only person then and the only person now who's had government-wide responsibility for privacy In the administration We're recently in the Obama administration He was special assistant for the president for academic policy and part of a review group on intelligence and communications After these student disclosures He is now a professor of law and ethics at Georgia Tech as well as special counsel at Alston and Bird in Atlanta So thank you both for for joining me today again. My name is Nancy Skola I'm a tech reporter at Politico send your tips and leads to end Skola at Politico comm Thank you very much Okay, so an issue in this case is one iPhone It's an iPhone 5c But there's been some discussion about What the implications are for this case on digital security more broadly? The very first line of Apple's most recent filing in California is this is not a case about one isolated iPhone They go on to say the government says just this once just this one phone But the government knows that these statements are not true that reads the filing Tim Cook has talked about the software that they've been As to create as a type of cancer the software equivalent of cancer and the government We have has said has offered the sort of competing vision of this case and saying There's this is just about this one phone the software never has to come into the government's custody James Comey the FBI director told us our house of representatives the code The judge has directed Apple the right works only on this one phone. So who is right and Why is this side that is wrong in this case saying what they're saying? Are we supposed to do a poll first? I'm just was there we've organizers. I'm seeing we are going to do a poll after the introduction on a little screen here I'm sorry to cut you off Nancy. I just know I'm gonna catch you up a little bit we would like to do polling on this question This is an important question that has been discussed in the media a lot And we'd really like the audience to get engaged So there are clickers keypads on your on your chair or on someone else's chair And we're going to ask the same question twice. This is the question The court should require Apple to provide the technical assistance that the government is demanding to facilitate access To the San Bernardino's shooters. I lock a locked iPhone. So you can do yes, which will be one B Which will be to and see I don't know Three we're going to ask this now and then before audience Q&A after you've heard these Experts debate the issue. We're gonna ask the same question again So we'd really like to see if this debate impacts how the audience and you know how our friends on Twitter are Thinking about this issue. So if you're on Twitter, tell us what your answer is and at the end of the debate We'll tell you what the before answer was and what the after answer was Excellent. Thanks so much and another logistics note We're going to speak for some time and then we're gonna put it up for Q&A at the end So get your questions ready. So again, do I should I go through that again? Or the basic question is is this about one phone or not? And why is the side that is making the wrong argument in your opinion making that argument? I'm going to jump in You know you asked Which side is right on that question of is this about one phone or or all iPhones? And I don't think either is right. I think both sides are being a little bit misleading in how they're characterizing the case because if you read Apple's public statements, and if you read the the introduction to its brief You would think that the government is demanding that Apple sell not just Do something with this phone but actually sell a product that has a built-in weakness Which is not at all what the government's asking it to do If you read the government's brief, you would think that This case has implications only for one phone and that there are not actually a hundred other phones lined up waiting to be unlocked And so they're both I think you know for strategic reasons Somewhat mischaracterizing what this case is about so it is about one phone in that the order that the government is seeking is For Apple to assist in unlocking that one phone Or in putting the government in a position where it can unlock the phone is really what it's about But if Apple does assist by developing a software tool to enable the FBI to do what it wants to this phone That tool would potentially be available for other iPhones that have the same operating system at least so it does have broader Implications than just this case and the question can wire the sides of making that argument I mean it might seem obvious on the surface, but can you parse that a little bit about why it's so critical that they're taking the stand that they're taking? Apple's characterizing this as as you know government OS like like you know Apple's going to be selling a New operating system to the public because it wants it wants this case to be seen through the prism of its broader policy objective which is to oppose any legislation that would require Phone manufacturers or other hardware or software manufacturers to embed some sort of backdoor that would allow Government access to encrypted data, so it wants it wants this case to be seen as part of that whole issue The government wants to extract this case from that whole set of much more difficult issues and much more contentious Issues and portray. This is just a routine request for government for for private sector assistance in effectuating a search warrant So I think on this issue is it one phone Apple has the better of it by far First of all one phone today on Monday will become a murder case in Atlanta DC on Tuesday will become another case on Wednesday So once Apple has built the variation on the operating system on Monday for this case on Tuesday when there's a murder case, I don't see how they can say no We're not going to help you on this one. We only help you for San Bernardino. We don't help you on the murder case So there's at least a slippery slope to other unlocking of devices in the same situation But I think beyond that the the all-ritz act, which is the law that people are spending the most time arguing about And this is on this one. I'm with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which doesn't happen all the time Wall Street Journal editorial board said if the all-ritz act Can compel Apple to rewrite the operating system for these devices? It has where does it end do other things and the real risks the big slippery slope problem on encryption Becomes much worse if it turns out that the government asks Apple to create remote access to iPhones, which then is a vulnerability Anywhere in the world you can attack from anywhere to anywhere and when it comes to breaking encryption if you're breaking encryption at that wholesale level, that's a critical infrastructure problem of the first magnitude and nothing in the government's argument shows any difference between this one phone and Assistance that would help us get in remotely in the future And so until the government or the courts or Congress or somebody sets some line there We have a huge slippery slope problem And I think that's why perhaps Apple took the position now on a horrible case San Bernardino case because that slippery slope is such a massive problem if we break encryption for remote access Okay, excellent. So you're both attorneys you've both been government attorneys if you're counseled to the FBI Do you counsel the FBI not to ask for this information? Even though it might further their investigation because of their concerns about what it means for cyber security or digital security in the future What one one thing that happened here is that it's a law enforcement case, and it's not a FISA case So there could be I don't we don't have any reason in the public record to think that the same request had been made of Apple For a foreign intelligence Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act the the ability to go after terrorists and spies and agents of foreign powers in the United States there's the secret FISA court and There's briefing that can happen there But we wouldn't have this big public debate the same way and maybe part of why Apple Fought this case is that it was a law enforcement case where they could go public about the debates in the criminal domain and It's an interesting choice for the government. You might have thought they would try to get the precedent without all the publicity And and then have shown that there was the ability to already get this cooperation from Apple But instead we have this highly public version on a criminal case And I think that's a that's been a weakness for the government that they're they're getting Beat up in public opinion to some extent instead of litigating it in a in a form that might have been more favorable for them You know, I think I think their approach is the right one I think in general that that this is very different from asking companies to build in Vulnerabilities into the products that they put on the market. There is clearly a slippery slope issue Because the all-ritz act which was written in 1789 and only slightly amended since then has extremely broad terms that Internally have no limitations But courts for decades have Been able to draw lines and say, you know This is going you're asking this company or this individual to go too far So I'm not going to grant the order in other cases. They say I don't think this is too burdensome So I'm going to I'm going to grant the government's request in this case And I think courts are capable of drawing those lines I mean fourth amendment jurisprudence that the the law of searches and seizures Consists entirely of courts drawing lines about what constitutes a reasonable search and seizure and what constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure You know reasonable or unreasonable That word those words in themselves don't have a lot of meaning until a judge puts meaning in them in each particular case And I think that's really Realistically that's really the only way to deal with these requests for assistance because Even Apple a lot of Apple's allies may be objecting to the notion of Companies having to assist the government at all but companies who actually live in the real world know that Telecommunications companies equipment manufacturers landlords custodians Taxi drivers all sorts of people have been forced to give government assistance in effectuating search warrants wiretaps and it's been going on for decades And no one's ever said that's an illegitimate request. So the question in my mind is What sort of request goes too far? San Bernardino to me is is is right at the edge Possibly over the edge. I'd like to reserve my own personal judgment until I see the government's response to Apple's Brief so I I fall in see I don't know it at this point ask me again next week And I'll have a more definitive view. Okay, so I've asked you to play a government lawyer for FBI Let's play Tim Cook Apple CEO Tim Cook if you think it's questionable or extremely Unpleasant for the government to have asked Apple to essentially be drafted into creating software Should Tim Cook have volunteered should Apple have volunteered to avoid this outcome in the court If you were Tim Cook, what would you have done it presented with this? So I think we've seen a huge response since Snowden in 2013 from American tech companies to go Very publicly and strongly in the direction of better encryption There had been lots of people including myself beating them up for years saying you know how to do better encryption and you're not doing it and We just issued a report last week that showed the fraction of internet backbone traffic. That's encrypted using HTTPS so in April 2014 That was less than a year after Snowden the percentage of traffic that was encrypted in the u.s And the backland was 13% and in February based on the numbers we pulled that number went up to 49% So in less than two years the fraction of encrypted traffic in the u.s Which applies to you for most of the top 50 websites and all that is now encrypted at a massively greater scale That's been done by the companies and Microsoft's done this Google Apple and others They've done that to show to their customers in the United States and abroad that people can trust them with their data They were very upset with some of the revelations that came out from under Snowden Microsoft's general counsel Called the u.s. Government an advanced persistent threat And and so we've seen a big shift by the companies who in order to have customer Trust have felt they have to push very very strongly in this direction And now this is the visible moment when the real fight happens about that I thought it was interesting that Bill Gates was asked essentially that question by the financial times and Was reported to have said that he thought Apple should have just gone along with the request and then the next day He issued some sort of Clarification which to me just made it clear that Tim Cook called him up and said what what are you saying? Completely pulling the rug out Nice call to have been on So, you know, I think despite the tremendous outpouring of briefs Apple side in this case. I think Within close behind closed doors within industry. I think views are actually somewhat more mixed on this The other interesting thing is that while San Bernardino is going on. There's a parallel case going on in Brooklyn involving an older Operating system which Apple can can easily unlock and extract data for the government and has done so Approximately 84 times already It's been reported 70 but in fact more recent information shows it's more like 83 or 84 And Apple was all set to comply with the judge's order to extract the data in the Brooklyn case until the magistrate there said Hang on a second. I'm not so sure the all-rids act actually allows the government to do this Apple, you know, I'd like a brief from you and it was at that moment in October that Apple decided to object even in that case I Don't have any problem with the government's position in that case because Apple's not being asked to write New software it has already extracted data in similar cases. It has the tool on the shelf I think that's a much easier case for the government, but it's interesting that Apple Decided ultimately to object even in that case and didn't just wait for San Bernardino One of the things that's been interesting in sort of the reporting out of this Situation there have been some great reporters covering the ins and outs of this is that there's some difference of opinion inside the administration Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter has come out and been vocally pro encryption pro strong encryption However, you want to define it in this case essentially saying that the FBI has gone too far James Comey obviously has been very aggressive asking for access to this particular phone The one of the things that was interesting when we were prepping for this We talked about the history that these fights have been going on for decades and Michael. He said it's deja vu every day We've had some of these discussions over and over again How well has the administration? However, you want to define that sort of every branch of the administration up to the president Responded in this situation given that we've been doing this for 40 years So if you can grade the administration how well they've handled this situation, what would that be and I'm looking for a letter grade You're the professor you go I say it's incomplete. I mean You know it's a group project, but the group team members haven't all agreed yet That if I can slightly turn I mean so in the 90s and and Michael is living through some of these and I was living through other meetings The rough lineup was the NSA and the FBI wanted the most access to data They're they're doing intelligence and law and roughly commerce is the one that's the most favor favorable to the industry We need strong encryption argument and the most interesting swing vote in some ways has been the Defense Department Because in the 90s They're tempted NSA is part of the Defense Department They were tempted for a long time to think that being strong meant national security We have to do our intelligence and at some point during the 90s the voices in the Pentagon started to say wait a second We need to have strong encryption built in the United States And we don't want our Navy and Air Force encryption to be weak and broken by other people So we need really really good encryption for defense and so in the bureaucratic battles in the 90 Eventually around 99 the Defense Department shifted to the Commerce Department side And when that happened That's when it changed and the administration ended up saying okay We need to have strong encryption so seeing the Secretary of Defense come out again this time Voicing the need for effective encryption. I think reminds us that there's there's really compelling equities within the government on both sides And if you think of running a military operation, you sure want to have effective encryption And that might have been what we were hearing from Secretary defense Carter to some extent There really are remarkable parallels between The internal debate in the administration now and what was happening in the in the mid 90s when I was working on this issue I was one of the DOJ people trying to advance the law enforcement interest which was not you know We can encryption, but it was you know, let's find out Let's find some way to allow Law enforcement access and national security access to encrypted data so that we're not flying blind when we're trying to catch terrorists and spies and serious criminals and we were you know lockstep with the NSA which was the which you know had an interest in being able to Decode the communications of people abroad that it was Monitoring, but I remember vividly being the day in the White House when we were having yet another meeting On this issue to come up with an administration policy when all of a sudden NSA You know if if the representative didn't physically get up and move away from me He did so in spirit because they just they changed their mind and it became clear to me Okay, I guess this is no longer a problem for NSA because they figured out another way to deal with it And that's the thing that you know the intelligence interests and law form law enforcement interests are not Co-extensive because NSA is always going to be able to find ways around encryption They'll they'll get the communication before it's encrypted after it's decrypted or somehow Put some vulnerability in that will that will allow them to get access It is a much harder thing for law enforcement to do which is constrained by the law has much fewer resources to be able to brute force break encryption and things like that so I Remember feeling very much like we were left hold in the bag. We had been advancing the argument for The whole national security community and suddenly were there left alone, which is a large part. I think why The commerce view ended up prevailing Because law enforcement was on its own at that point Okay, one of you talked about having to inform Attorney General Janet Reno that she was not going to win Yeah, I was I was a Relatively I was a sort of medium-level official reporting to people who went to what are called deputies meetings in Washington And we had a meeting in the situation room where justice was coming over to hear the update And so I did the Washington thing of as the junior person sitting in the back of the room like you do and then you let the senior People they said no Peter you sit up here And the deputy sat behind me and I got to tell Janet Reno that the administration decided she was going to lose on all She's a she's a large woman. She's very she has strong views and powerful presence And I remember just sort of sitting there as she got really really mad because she had not been briefed that this was going to happen at that meeting The deputies who had been with her in the room for years didn't want to didn't want to tell her that It was yeah so I Think one of the things that's hard to tell from the Defense Department is how much the NSA got Capabilities and how much the other interests in the Defense Department to have effective encryption built in the United States Wait in and I think it's hard to tell I think both of those were going on to some extent and and after the Snowden papers There was a lot written about Capabilities the NSA had to not so much to rig the standards which was talked about a lot But that they had a lot of different ways in using their best resources. So it does seem like they had ways in over for years By contrast the local police department has no way in and there's thousands of local jurisdictions And if you were the officer on an important case in your small town You have no idea how to get into this phone And that's where a lot of the the anger is coming I think right now is from local law enforcement who really feel shut out from from things Mike I let you off the hook with letter-grade You know compared to the Clinton administration. I think they're they're a B plus Because you know, you're gonna have different views and you're never going to be able to keep one agency from Speaking to the press or going up on the hill and speaking to members of Congress about what you know They see as as their interests or or the nation's interests from their perspective But I think the administration has by and large done a pretty good job of keeping a relatively United front. I mean, I think they've they've made it clear. They're not seeking legislation to restrict strong encryption or to you know require Access of some sort they've made that perfectly clear on the other hand they support the FBI in the San Bernardino case People may disagree with with that, but I think there's a there's a reason distinction between the two issues So I think they've done a pretty good job of this quick fire question if you could keep the answer short Have we reached the level? Where have we reached a point in this debate where the president whoever the president happens to be needs to weigh in This has always been sort of agency department in fighting internal debate. Is it time for the president of the United States to weigh in? I don't think there's been clear reporting of Exactly what the president said, but I have every reason to think that the no legislation position is Something the president knows about and has approved And that's a that's not what probably FBI director Comey would have won it So to that extent, you know forceful presentation from DOJ or FBI has not led to proposed legislation I think that's a statement very likely where the president is So he has weighed in we just haven't necessarily been paying attention He hasn't given a speech the public statements have been sort of vague, but I think he clearly has been part of it Yeah, I agree There has been a purpose. I'm just gonna check that time very quickly There has been a proposal so we're gonna open up the questions in a few minutes if you all can think about There has been a proposal floating around Capitol Hill advanced by Senator Mark Warner, Virginia Rep Michael McCall of Texas to create a digital security Commission bringing together industry academics government law enforcement to come to some sort of solution it's modeled after the 9-11 Commission and There they claim that they're getting some traction within tech companies within tech the tech industry because they want some solution that isn't Sort of mandated by the courts Some other folks in sort of digital civil society worlds have pushed back against that They think it's just the sort of the next step towards legislation. Do you think that sort of commission? Let's get everyone around the table. It's a good idea or not To quote animal house knowledge is good And and to Extend a commission will will foster more knowledge about the issues and the competing equities and all that that's great But it's hardly a solution and it's a typical Washington solution to a problem. We can't figure it out. Let's appoint a commission and and claim that we did our you know We answered the the bell and that's it. So, you know great, but it's We're not helpful Apple has has apple wants to be for something and so they're for the commission New America our host today. I think has expressed its concerns about the commission is leading to more problems than good I like Apple. I like New America They disagree on that One thing that that has maybe Michael feels one thing we have seen is there was a huge education project on encryption in the late 90s every member of Congress went through multiple meetings to learn about the issue and to some extent we're having to retrain everybody again on These issues and whether it's a commission or something else Getting to the point where people understand the technology the the trade implications and the rest There's there's something good that comes from that because you realize something simply aren't possible There's a lot of people who magically want things to be possible like having a key that only works for the good guys And not the bad guys and that key doesn't work We have not been able to do magic on that and it takes a while to come to the view that that's actually the truth So education at some levels essential and whether it's a commission or something else people are going to have to go through that process I think Is there a last question for me and then we'll open it up Is there anything that you knew to be on the phone in the sandburn Bernadette case that would tip the scales Towards the FBI in your mind that you would say okay Apple needs to step up and open up and help Make it possible open up this phone the sort of ticking time bomb scenario the Is there anything on that phone that you would think would make it would you compel you to change your mind on Well since I haven't made up my mind yet It would it would certainly if there were a ticking time bomb if we knew that there was a high Likelihood that there was information about additional plots that the shooter had been in communication with other terrorists about That would certainly I think matter Would enter the calculus of determining whether the request was reasonable or not My answer is it's like the ticking time bomb and torture question Right if you knew the bomb was going to go off to you torture the person and would you change you as policy to Allow torture and everyone in the room has been around that conversation and the law rule of law people say no You just don't you don't go against the law So I'll stick with the no torture and no breaking of encryption position Questions do we are we doing a microphone? Kevin we'll give you Hi Kevin banks to no ti just one quick clarification new America's OTI program has taken a position regarding the Commission The greater new America organization is not Question, what do you guys make of the apple sides argument that? Compelling Apple to code this new program And or to sign it with its own encryption with its own signing key and legitimize it so that the phone accepts it What do you make of that first amendment argument? I can try or do You know, I don't personally think much of it I don't think Apple thinks much of it because it got less than a page in its brief. I think and You know, it's a nice argument There have been some cases suggesting that that code is speech But the the implications of that argument talk about a slippery slope You know if code is speech then then the idea of government regulation of anything involving software It goes by the boards unless there's a compelling state interest And there are lots of other things under that argument that becomes speech. I mean industrial design Why is the design of a car not speech? Does does Honda or Ford have a right to design a car without seatbelts and airbags because they believe in human freedom? You know unconstrained by government Notions of preserving public safety. I mean, where does that end? So, you know, I don't think I don't think Apple takes it Seriously, and I think the argument's got a lot of problems Yeah, they're coming with the mic. I'm Allison stanger I'm a fellow of the new America's cyber security initiative and also professor of political science at Middlebury College in Vermont And I just wanted to ask Michael to elaborate on his position of answering see in that questionnaire What would you need to know or see in the government response to tick a or to tick B? If you could sketch that out for us, I think it'd be interesting. Well, you know Given my view, I think I think these questions of what what can courts order under the all-ritz act become very fact-dependent and so I'd like to know more facts one thing. I think would be interesting would be to know How does the the burden that Apple says this case would impose on them? That is, you know, it would take six to ten people two to four weeks of time working on this How does that compare to a typical wiretap? Order or typical, you know assistants in a search warrant case where Telecommunications companies all the time respond to you know, often those things take a lot of work and You know Apple talked about having you know, the government's asking us to set up a hacking department Well, a lot of these companies have huge infrastructures For assisting the government in in these types of cases. So, you know creating Devoting six engineers for a couple of weeks to a problem You know might not be that different from what is done all the time So the government might might have something to say about that and also effectuating wiretap orders may well, I believe do require companies to write software to enable them to focus on the communication the target communications filter out other communications and Deliver it to the government, you know, is that so is this case as qualitatively different as apples characterizing it? I don't you know, those are facts. I'd like I'd be interested in if I were the judge Thank you, I'm Adam Iskra with the American Library Association Mr. Sensenbrenner quite conspicuously and insistently asked Apple's general counsel when he was testifying the other day What proposals legislative proposals would Apple put forward to govern what Apple could or should do in these circumstances? My question to the panelists is was that a fair question? I already said that Apple wanted to be for something there for a commission That's a lot safer for them than saying here's the way to regulate us. That's not what companies typically like proposing They usually wait for someone to come by and then explain why it's a terrible idea That's usually the way regulation conversation works in Washington You know, there they're different kinds there ways you can move on So there's there could be pro encryption laws California has a proposal that would ban sale of smartphones unless you could open them up in a court order There's a proposal in California legislature people have been floating language in Washington saying let's preempt that not let States go and force the breaking of encryption. So from the we think encryption is important for safety side There are proposals that could lock in that view more strongly That's not where sense and Brenner was heading But I think it's where a lot of the folks from the encryption side would like to go because otherwise you could have Pernicious proposals popping up all over the place that would break strong encryption You know what? Reminds me of something. I think that that needs to be remembered. We talk about this issue as though America's setting policy for the world One of the things I do in private practices advise manufacturers of software and hardware including encryption on the encryption laws around the world and We have this database of a hundred and thirty three reports on on country's laws And there are a lot of countries that already restrict the use and importation of encryption Unless it meets certain requirements such as depositing a key copy of the key with the government or giving the government access to the software So they can figure out how to break it before it gets sold in their country the French National Assembly yesterday just passed a bill that would impose strict penalties including imprisonment On individuals at companies who refuse to assist in in breaking encryption So whatever we do here, there are countries in the world who are are already imposing restrictions and We haven't heard a lot about what Apple or other manufacturers are doing to comply Or not comply with those existing laws in other countries And you know, I think that would be an interesting thing to look into But one of the one of the reasons to fight hard on this issue in the United States Is to send a message to the world that effective encryption is important and promote cyber security and allows political descent If the United States sends a message instead that we're going to open up security on the name in the name of Surveillance that's a message for authoritarian regimes etc to open up on the side of surveillance So I think it hurts our human rights posture in the world among other problems Amy Stepanovich spoke earlier today about some of this We're sending signals about whether we're on the side of Enabling the strong security or enabling surveillance and I think I think that's a big signal that will affect the way the rest of the World goes it will have that effect But I guess my point is Authoritarian regimes don't need to wait for us to give them permission to be authoritarian and to limit encryption They're already doing it one last question Then I think we need to throw we have two minutes left and I'll throw the pole back up one last question How comfortable say the outcome of this case is that we remain with this status quo Apple is able to keep up the strong encryption law enforcement has to look elsewhere How comfortable are you with the idea that some parts of American life are going to be off-limits to law enforcement? I'm super comfortable I've written a bunch about how the the image from the law enforcement side is going dark that suddenly They can't see anything and I've written about why and said it's the golden age of surveillance when you look at Tracking devices like cell phones when you look at all the metadata about who we co-conspire with when you look at all the other databases I think law enforcement has an unbelievable treasure trove in this era And if there's certain areas we're able to lock down law enforcement has really dramatically more resources than it's had before to Track individuals so I'm I'm fine with locking down this part of the system There will be a cost You know and I think that's something that that we as a society need to recognize and not and not just assume that this is something That's cost-free But you know a lot that's The job of the legislature is to make choices like that So if Congress wants to impose restrictions on encryption in order to avoid those costs That's that's what we pay them the big money for Or or not Okay, excellent. Thank you so much. So are we Who's our pole master here? Can we start clicking again? How does it work people still have their clickers? Oh Okay, so the pole's back up go ahead and click And then Andy is Oh, here she is You got I can't wait to see the results I think at the RSA conference last week 86% of people voted no to pretty similar question So we'll see how there's crowd as society. Yeah, we'll see how that turns out. So yes So I think you guys know how to do this, but you've got the clickers the 14% were that where they represent us from government who Excellent So we'll wait here and give it a give it a second until we get the results back But I want to say thank you to you guys while I have the stage And you guys are captive audience, but thanks very much. It was fascinating and I think what very well thought out conversations Thank you very much