 Yay! So, yeah, I'm going to talk about psychographic targeting in political campaigns, psychographic meaning using personality and behaviour to target ads at specific groups of people. I'm going to speak a little bit more about the title of the talk in a couple of slides. But let me explain how we got into this research on this particular talk. So, in 2016 we did some research into the EU referendum, some of you might know as Brexit. We did six studies consisting of about 11,000 participants and we looked at personality differences, differences in numeracy skills, thinking styles and cognitive biases. In three of those studies we added a question around, can you all hear me? I guess. Closer? Wow, I'll probably be eating it. Okay, so in three of those studies with about 5,000 people we added an additional question that's asked people's opinions at how much they agreed on the nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument. So if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear. What we saw in that research was that people who voted to leave the European Union were much more likely to support the nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument than those who voted to remain. So we wanted to study that in greater depth to understand kind of what was going on there and understand a little bit more about the drivers. Then in around January of this year some of my friends started pointing out articles like this which appeared in Scout.ai and this is where we got the title of the talk from really. They introduced it as the rise of the weaponized AI propaganda machine so using psychographic information in political campaigns. So my friends weren't the only people who were beginning to sort of question the efficacy of how well does this work essentially. Other journalists started looking at that and saying well does this really hold water or not. So we've got a little bit of background in this topic. In 2013 we presented at DEFCON predicting susceptibility to social bots on Twitter so seeing which users would interact with a social bot based on their Twitter activity and we also looked at personality in that. In 2011 and 2012 we looked at determining personality through Facebook activity and through Twitter both of those were presented at DEFCON also. So what we decided to do was using attitudes to online surveillance or digital rights use that as the central thesis for exploring the efficacy of psychographic marketing and political campaigns. So the rest of the talk is structured into five main sections. First of all we look at why people are divided. Then we move on to what influences their views, what nudges them one way or the other. Then we look at once we understand how people are divided assuming they are which spoiler alert they are how can you effectively target groups with differing attitudes in relation to online communication surveillance. Once we know how we can target different users or different people essentially we look at how persuasive are targeted ads. And then finally we wrap up with looking at okay once a message is out there how effective, how able are you to debunk misleading information or misinterpretable information once it gets out of the gate. So on to the first question looking at why people are divided. Well we chose nothing to fear, nothing to hide argument but we could have chosen the death penalty, we could have chosen the topic of same sex marriage and we could have chosen the topic of immigration. So what seems to be at the centre or at least a major factor in all of these differing world views is something called authoritarianism which began as a study in the I guess following the Second World War but lost some favour or some credibility in those early years and has regained credibility in more recent years in the last few decades essentially. So authoritarianism as you look at it you might be forgiven for thinking it's a bimodal distribution with people either low or high and not a great deal in the middle but what we actually find is that it's a much more skewed distribution than that at least in the Facebook samples that we see. So what characterizes authoritarianism is that people higher in authoritarianism tend to see the world in black and white whereas people lower in authoritarianism tend to see it in shades of grey really and it's a sliding scale so it's very rare to have people at certain extremes essentially. People who are higher in authoritarianism are more concerned about the upkeep of societal norms and traditions whereas people lower in authoritarianism are more embracing of new cultures, new ideas so a footloose image there. Additionally what we see is that those who are higher in authoritarianism have lower tolerance for outgroups whereas people who are lower in authoritarianism are much more embracing of different cultures or different races and what have you. So the scales that we use throughout our studies stem from some work by researchers called Feldman and Stenner in 1997 where they developed a very simple way of looking at authoritarianism. They developed a four question if you like child rearing questionnaire so if you select answers to these questions which you have to select one or the other for each of the line items if you're predominantly choosing answers on the right hand side then you're higher in authoritarianism than people choosing answers on the left hand side generally there's some exceptions to that. So moving on to our study and our results but the first thing in looking at why people differ we chose authoritarianism to look at in greater depth. We conducted four different studies from February to May with differing sample sizes. You'll note that there's studies A and studies B there's a slight difference in the studies. All of the questions, all of the studies took basic demographic information, age and sex and they asked a number of questions about people's attitudes to online surveillance which we essentially replicated from prior studies or prior surveys so that we could actually go back and reference and see if our numbers were consistent. The difference between studies B and A was that the B studies also contained a numerical question which we'll get to a little bit later in the presentation because the studies differed we treat them kind of individually as well we don't group them with one exception. So we had about 2,400 people took part in those surveys which we ran through Facebook. So the questions we asked were how much do you agree and it was a binary choice. The binary choice in the question stemmed from work from Professor Heatherington and Elizabeth Shughay who had previously looked at authoritarianism in American politics in 2011. So we wanted to try and replicate some of their work. So do you have nothing to fear? Do you agree or disagree with you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide? So that was the question to replicate our EU referendum work. Then the next question was it is acceptable that law enforcement agencies have the right to access the content of citizens online communication without a warrant in order to investigate terrorism. That question was from the Heatherington study. Then the next question we ask is it is acceptable that immigrants and visitors from potentially dangerous countries should have to reveal their social media account passwords to UK border agents. So we use the UK sample set but you can do this on a US sample set to the next question which came from a survey on attitudes to privacy in 2016 was simply the dark net should be shut down. I'm not quite sure how you do that but it comes from a survey. So it gave me a chuckle so we added that in. The final question we asked was companies should not be allowed to develop technologies that prevent law enforcement from accessing your online conversations and that came from that same privacy survey. So going back to our surveys I mentioned that we treat them differently because studies B and A were slightly different so we treat them different statistically. The other thing that happened was that in March, late March there was a terrorist attack in London so what we wanted to do was we'll see what the effect was on the terrorist attack to attitudes to online surveillance and there's been previous work in that space, researchers have looked at differing attitudes before and after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris. So what we see from the results of surveys A1 and A2 the ones without the numeric question is that for most of the questions you get around a sort of a 30%ish agree with the statement. Only one of those was statistically different before and after the attacks and that was the banning the anti-surveillance technology question. The rest while it looks like there's a visual difference or there is a visual difference we didn't see a statistically significant difference between opinions. The thing that interested me or fascinated me the most about the results was that there was more support for shutting down the dark net. People just want to shut that sucker down essentially. So looking at studies B1 and B2 which the B2 study was conducted 41 days after the attacks we see that there's almost no difference in opinions from before and after so the opinions sort of drop off after the terrorist attacks in those surveys. So we see broadly the level of support there is hoffers around us at 30% and we'll get to that a little bit more in the presentation. So looking at the role of authoritarianism in these attitudes when we look at the nothing to hide, nothing to fear question in particular we see somewhere between a one and a half to a two and a half times increase between those who agree with the statement being more authoritarian versus those who disagree with the statement. We also perform logistic regression essentially to look at plotting the odds and some other statistical methods and we find the same differences broadly through all of them. In terms of the other questions we see broadly similar results as well around wiretapping, shutting down the dark net, banning anti-surveillance technology in extreme vetting. So we see consistently not just across the questions but also between all of the different age groups and sexes that these opinions tend to be fairly consistent. So assuming that authoritarianism is more of a constant what is it that can influence people's differing views? So it's said by a gentleman called Bob Ultamire who developed what was called the right wing authoritarian scale in 1996 that authoritarians are characterised as being like ten steps closer to the panic button. So we sort of plot that on this graph and show the blue line as essentially the baseline of support for surveillance. Then there are two streams of research that have looked at this previously. The first stream of research by Feldman and Stenna had essentially argued that the perception of threat increases support among those who are higher in authoritarianism. So the folks at the higher end of the scale there are going to support it more if they are more concerned about the threat of terrorism. Another stream of research by Heatherington and Suhey in 2011 found that threat increases support among those lower in authoritarianism. So people at the high end didn't really change their opinion if they perceived the threat to be high but those much lower were more likely to adopt an authoritarian position if they perceived the threat to be high. The researchers that looked at the differences before and after the Charlie Hebdo attacks which I mentioned a little bit earlier looked at this and suggest that both are partly right and that it's anxiety that's responsible for causing the uplift in those who are lower in authoritarianism if they are concerned about the threat of terror versus anger in people higher in authoritarianism if they perceive the threats of terror to be high. So in the study that we conducted what we've done in all of the studies a question simply asked how worried are you that you might personally become a victim of a terrorist attack and that was coded people could answer in like four ways from like I'm not worried at all to yeah I'm very concerned and that replicates the work from Heatherington and Suhey so what we did as we used a logistic regression essentially replicating Heatherington's work plotting the probability of support for each of those questions against authoritarianism and then looking at the effect of people's perception on threats. So Heatherington and Suhey's work I figured I'd add this so sorry about the bad quality photo from Heatherington's book but here you can see the effect that he was talking about essentially people lower in authoritarianism you see that the support really increases from about 25% of support on their wiretapping question to about 75-80% probability of support and you'll see at the higher end of authoritarianism there's really not a great deal of difference. So in our studies in terms of the nothing to hide nothing to fear question we see essentially a similar sort of effect happening to what Heatherington and Suhey found so going from about an 18% probability of support for those who are not concerned and are low in authoritarianism that jumps to about a 60% level of support but there's not many in that category and at the higher end there's almost no difference. Looking at all of the other questions at least for wiretapping and banning anti-surveillance tech we see similar sort of trend going on I'll talk about extreme vetting and shutting down the dark net shortly so extreme vetting is an anomaly but Heatherington had seen that or seen a similar sort of interaction in one of his other questions so that needs more analysis but I didn't want to shirk away from calling that one out. The other thing which interested me was that here you see reflected the high level of support for shutting down the dark net and you see how that jumps up even from like a medium high, a very high level you see the interaction so that if people are concerned you know there's broad support for tackling the dark net so okay now we've looked at how people differ around the disposition of authoritarianism and we can see the role that perception of threat has on people's attitudes now we look at okay how can we target those different groups of people how can we target people who are low in authoritarianism versus people who are high in authoritarianism so essentially a lot of researchers looked at the relationship between age, sex, geography, Facebook interests, Facebook activity and such like and personality what we want to be able to do here is almost get personality in our case we use authoritarianism put it through a function and get the age, sex, geography and Facebook interests are going to be most closely associated with people who are low or high in authoritarianism so if you like we create two buckets one bucket there for low authoritarian and one bucket for high authoritarian so on to the study and our findings first of all tackling age and sex what we saw in the EU referendum studies was that the difference between female voters who voted to leave or remain in the EU had a much closer level of authoritarianism there wasn't a great deal to separate them and indeed looking at the results there were very low percentages of females in the 18 to 35 age group who wanted to leave the EU we also saw that reflected in the studies that we'd looked at here with regards to nothing to fear nothing to hide arguments online communication surveillance you see that as females get older the difference extends so there is a starker difference and that gets like more consistent with males and for males there was differences at every age so in terms of the buckets that we created and we created these buckets so that we could add them into the Facebook advertising audiences we have the low authoritarian groups of males of any age but females only if they're under 35 and for the high authoritarian category we use males of any age and females who are 35 and over so that's our simple age and sex classification and it is relatively simple but as we see it it becomes quite effective so for geography Renfro and other researchers have looked at regional differences in personality these are maps of the United Kingdom and the letters at the bottom reflect what's called the big five of personality so you've got openness to experience which is strongly correlated with creativity conscientiousness which is more concerned about some of the traditions and what have you or correlates with that we've got extroversion, agreeableness and neuroticism so he's looked at different areas with a very large sample set across the UK and found different regional differences he's also done that with the United States as well so if you're interested in those regional differences you can check that out so he's presented a lot of results and findings for each of about 300 different local area districts in the United Kingdom so what we did is we mapped authoritarianism to the big five using some meta-analysis from researchers simply and took it and in terms of authoritarianism it's classified or high authoritarianism is classified by higher degrees of conscientiousness and lower degrees of openness mostly there was a slight difference in neuroticism but we can pretty safely ignore that so for our research what we did we plotted openness here but we reverse it so we get low openness essentially against conscientiousness and then we take the results from rent-fro study of over 300 areas in the UK and we plot them on a graph that's a little bit like this so you get the high authoritarians to the top right hand corner and you get the low authoritarians towards the bottom left and since there's a hacker conference it's quite interesting that the least authoritarian place in the United Kingdom is called Hackney in London and I didn't make that up for the talk so we chose some towns that were most likely to be in our opinion high authoritarian and some towns and cities that were most likely to be low in authoritarianism we also looked at how many people were there for reach and stuff like that so we had some other characteristics that we looked at and the towns that we chose for low authoritarian were towns that most of you probably heard of Cambridge, Liverpool, Edinburgh and now you've all heard of Hackney and in the high authoritarian town we've got high authoritarian districts we've got places like Basildon and Thurwick and Mansfield and Swindon, you might have heard of Swindon if you like the game like my son does the amazing frog and pungence's YouTube channel other than that I'm not sure that any of those towns are that famous outside of the United Kingdom so now we've got a bucket for age and sex and we've got the regions that we're going to use in our Facebook advertising and incidentally the results that we found using just a simple logistic regression were actually really good at correctly classifying the EU referendum vote and we did the same thing when we looked at the regional differences in the US and predicting the recent election that you guys had so on to Facebook interests there's a tool here called the preference tool that's available to researchers where you use slider bars if you like to put in different effects of personality and that shows you some of the Facebook interests that those groups use now we did not use the preference tool because it's available only to researchers and we didn't need to do that really because we looked at some of the Facebook interests that we already knew were highly correlated to high authoritarianism and low authoritarians so the low authoritarian category we chose just simply the interest of liberalism which is a Facebook interest and the Guardian newspaper which I guess is similar to your Washington post I guess for the high authoritarian category we chose conservatism and the mail online I'm not sure what the equivalent US newspaper is so somebody shouted something now but I didn't hear it so that's it so the baseline we've got to beat if you like is nothing to hide, nothing to fear argument we had a baseline of 38% support for that particular argument in the studies that we use in this sample set for the targeted audience just based on age, sex and geography we saw a drop from 38% to 32% but it wasn't statistically significant and we saw an uplift in support for the high authoritarian towns from 38 to 46 when we added the Facebook interests in that we looked at for the correlation to authoritarianism we saw that we started to get significant results although for the first group it was relatively low possibly due to the overall skew towards low authoritarianism anyway so from 38% agreement with the argument to 25 is not bad for a very simple experiment and in the high authoritarian category we're adding in personality we see the jump go from 38% to 61% which was highly statistically significant a quick note on the significance is that if I'm doing this in the wild I might not be so interested or worried about P levels and stuff like that if I consistently see the results like that maybe I'll just take a gamble on it anyway and it might give me a sort of higher return on my advertising investment so okay we've seen the differences in personality and we've seen how we can target different groups based on just some simple factors that enable us to reach audiences with significantly different views on online communication surveillance but now we want to turn to well what about persuasive ads and targeting of ads so this is Alexander Nick from Cambridge Analytica and he states in his videos online if you know the personality of the people you're targeting you can nuance your messaging to resonate more effectively with those key audience groups so there's been some research in this space and they created five separate telephone ads that were designed to appeal to different levels of the big five of personality so this is the ad that they used or at least this is a text that they used in an ad that was aimed at an extraversion the ex-phone with ex-phone you'll always be where the excitement is and then for neuroticism they have stay safe and secure with the ex-phone and they always saw statistically significant differences Matt's Popov Kozinski and Stillwell did a similar thing looking at aiming ads towards introverts and extroverts for beauty products and they saw that indeed targeting those ads based on personality had a significant effect on their click-through rates so they'll return on advertising investment so moving on to our study and results what we did we had ads that were aimed at people in the high authoritarian bucket and ads that were targeted at people who were in the low authoritarian buckets and we split that into ads that are designed to be pro-surveillance and ads that are designed to be anti-surveillance so the first ad for a pro was really appealing to to the high authoritarian categories terrorists don't let them hide online so hopefully invoking some anger there and for the low authoritarian group we tried to highlight that there was more than just terrorism online and we had the tagline crime doesn't stop where the internet starts I know it's cheesy but the thinking was that people would look at broader crimes like human trafficking and child exploitation so for the low authoritarian group with the anti-surveillance message we used the image of Anne Frank and we said do you really have nothing to fear if you've got nothing to hide and for the high authoritarian group we used an image of the D-Day landings appealing to the authoritarian characteristics of affiliation with military and respect for elders so those were the ads we categorised and then in looking at the results of those ads we referenced them here and these are the self-reported levels of authoritarianism in people that took part in our surveys or samples to rate the ads so they were asked a bunch of questions like how much do you like the ad how much does the ad resonate with my beliefs how persuasive is the ad how likely am I to click like or share on the ad that kind of thing and we split that then in people's self-reported groups so this was actually where the persuasiveness of the ad is rated and that is what people's levels of authoritarianism were classed at so high, medium and low so the performance of the high authoritarian ad we see that people who are high in authoritarianism like the ad much more than people who are like medium and low and when we moved to the ad for the low authoritarian group we see people who were high still like it it's kind of bought in because there'd be more pro surveillance anyway but we see then an uplift in the or the expected uplift in the low and medium or we see an uplift in the low and medium authoritarian categories so the ad seems to be having the sort of desired effect if you like for the low authoritarian category in anti-surveillance we see kind of a reversal of the high pro ad where people who were low in authoritarianism like it and people who were high don't like it so much when we target the ad towards or when we created the ads for the high authoritarian group we see a similar sort of uplift to the one we got in the top right hand corner and there's a broad level of increase of support from those medium and high so that's people's responses to how much they like the ad and when we took it a step further and tested it in the wild with Facebook ads designed or actually they were Facebook posts and we used the boosting in the Facebook advertising to appeal to those different audiences so here we see that the Facebook target audiences of high and low authoritarian there's only two groups there from our target audience and then the ads in those boxes relate to the ads that we just saw so what we do for this using the Facebook advertising essentially is then look at the click-through rates or actually this is really the ratio of likes and shares by the level of reach for each ad so the numbers look pretty low but actually those are fairly consistent with click-through rates that you'd expect so for the ads aimed at the high-auth group we see that as expected people who are in high-in-authoritarianism like the ad people who are low think it sucks in the low-authoritarian ad there was a lot less traction altogether and Facebook gives you forewarning it basically says that ads that have got a lot of text do less well you might want to consider changing your ad but what I draw your attention to at least is that there was an expected difference in the correlation coefficient if you like so the gap reduces between the low and high so if we move on to the low-authoritarian ads for anti-surveillance we see the expected results that people in the low-authoritarian target like the ad or interact with the ad much more than those in the high-authoritarian or more than those in the high but then what we see for the ad that's targeted at people in the high-authoritarian designed to appeal to people who are high-in-authoritarianism and anti we still get a lot of people who are low-in-authoritarianism like it because they like the message of they don't like online communications events or the idea of it but people higher then support it a lot more that was kind of surprising to us we thought we'd actually get more of a backlash from those groups rather than the interaction so again we see that the correlation coefficient reduces as we'd have expected from the ads but some of you might be thinking okay well that's well and good we've seen how much people like and click on ads but does persuasion actually work you haven't actually told us that fair comment I haven't and there's very little research into that but this research by researchers at the University of Mannheim in Germany, Junger, Wuttke and Co what they did is they took people's attitudes to transatlantic trade and a sample set was large it was about 8,000 people and then they sent some of them some ads explaining it or some literature about the benefits of transatlantic trade and they found that over the baseline which is the zero line the control of people who didn't receive the literature they found that people became much more supportive after they'd of transatlantic trade after they'd received the literature and they looked at the differences in opinions shortly after receiving a literature and then some time after and they did notice a drop-off in the time so it suggests that if you're wanting to get persuasive material out there then time is of the essence so okay now we've seen you can get the message out there the message is erroneous so how would you go about debunking propaganda well to this well it's not really how we go about debunking it's what are the challenges of debunking propaganda so for this we turn to some research from Professor Dan Cahana at Yale University he divided participants in his experiment into four categories A, B, C and D for categories A and B he gave them a numerical question about how well skin cream does at treating a rash and he gave them a number grid which looks like this so Group A received this number grid and were asked to say okay did skin cream essentially make the rash better or did it make it worse and people had to go figure that out whereas Group B the text was slightly changed but the numbers remained the same so the rash gets better or the rash gets worse so we found that people did roughly the same had roughly the same ability to answer the question but when he changed the question to one about does gun control reduce or increase crime he found that people's ideological beliefs really hampered their ability to answer the question and I'll demonstrate that because we replicated Cahan study in our EU referendum work but we changed the question from one of gun control to one about immigration increasing or decreasing crime so here we see how people do at the skin cream ad if you like so broadly consistent just under 60% getting it right in the referendum result leave versus remain but when we ask about does immigration decrease crime people who voted to leave were just not having any of that people to answer the question or their performance tanked essentially whereas people who voted to remain their performance answering the question actually increased then when we switch it to immigration increases crime then the leave voters start doing better again but the remain voters performance tanks and the research that he's conducted is termed ideologically motivated reasoning and it was dubbed in one article the most depressing brain finding ever which I liked and this study was from a little while ago but it's pretty exciting he's got a web page which you go check out called the cultural cognition project and it's well worth a read so in our study we sort of replicated that research again but we used the attitudes to online surveillance so in the skin cream ads we see similar sorts of trends between those who agree and disagree with the nothing to fear nothing to hide argument but then when we suggest that surveillance actually increases the threat of a terrorist attack then those who agree with the statement their performance drops quite significantly whereas those who disagree their performance drops a bit and I'd suggest that the performance drops a bit because the numerical question is actually the text in it is actually harder to read than it was for the immigration and gun control when we switch to surveillance actually does decrease the threat then we see the interaction reverse although not as starkly as we did in the immigration campaign we had a sample set of 1500 so we see the same sort of interaction just not as starkly however the interaction does seem to increase as people get older so you see a more significant result as people get over 35 and here we just show 44 and over so in terms of wrapping the talk up what we've seen is that authoritarianism plays a part in why people differ or why their opinions differ we found that the perception of threat plays a part in actually influencing and nudging people from a baseline position to a different position we found that we were able to actually target people with different attitudes to online surveillance just by using some simple knowledge about the psychological traits associated with authoritarianism we find that the persuasiveness of ads does indeed seem to work and that challenging or tackling misleading information is going to be a very challenging problem because people's ability to interpret evidence essentially becomes a lot harder if it goes against their existing beliefs so a question I received recently was ok well if both sides are using this do the effects equal each other out and I thought about that and thought well yeah in theory they sort of do or could do but there's another potential theory is that it's possible that one side has a home team advantage essentially so one of the ways they'd have a home team advantage is well if you've got momentum on your side then you can go with that and just like double down on it so here we see the shutting down the dark net question and the level of support for it well if you just go with that and just increase the already existing fears that people have it's going to be a lot harder to be in the defence to defend that argument than it is to attack the argument if you like there's also the role of fear so if you've not seen it there's a great video online by D Madigan on propaganda and D Madigan is a Australian campaign advertiser and does a really fantastic talk and she talks about the effect of fear based advertising and she says yeah people have said that or said to her that negative campaigns really suck and they don't work on me and her comment was essentially that yes negative campaigns do work and that's why we do them something like that anyway paraphrasing but the fear actually or increasing fear works and we've seen some studies on that as well from Brader in 2005 that shows how political ads motivate and persuade voters based on emotion and people have higher attention for ads that create more fear if you like and use sort of grainy black and white images versus ads that have a lower versus ads that use pictures of smiling children if you like in front of flags and you know that kind of good stuff so people's attention is drawn to the more negative ads in the first place so okay some thoughts on how how society might begin tackling the problem one of the things and we saw the effect of cognitive biases in the EU referendum research that we've done and that research we're going to be talking about at the international conference on political psychology in October and have teamed up with some researchers in the Tory state to help us tackle the challenge of extremely non-normal data but one of the ways we can tackle this or tackle the effect of cognitive biases is perhaps adopt a method that this lady here Jane Elliott had used and if you're not familiar with Jane Elliott's work she basically splits participants it was children in the classroom but she's done this with other group like blue or brown eyes and uses that as the basis for helping educate about racism and the effect of racism and kind of how that works so it's possible that you could do something similar in relation to cognitive biases to make people aware of that which would have benefits outside of the political campaigns to prevent people getting hustled at car dealerships and stuff like that the other thing we noticed is that levels of numeracy were really shockingly poor in the UK and I don't think the US is a great deal better so increasing people's numerical literacy skills was being able to determine that 1,000% APR is a bad deal on a credit card but it also has effects quite... it also has effects on people choosing medical options and whatnot as well so there's a lot of research actually in that area of risk literacy and making medical based choices so that needs increasing I think all around as well in addition to the biases and the next thing which I think is going to be a lot harder to achieve because literally anyone can do this if you've got big pockets you're going to get a lot more traction is really start enforcing or going after people who are abusing this sort of political advertising so that wraps up the presentation I'm sure folks will have questions you can reach me at chrisonlineprivacyfoundation.org I'm happy to address questions afterwards but we'll have to go outside somewhere I think and I'll leave some cards on the table if folks have questions alright, thanks very much