 saying to farmers is not saying to farmers, don't share your data. It's not saying you're sitting on this data, like keep it secure, keep it safe, don't give it to anyone. That's not at all what we're saying is, let's set some policies and rules around the sharing that will make it safer for farmers to share that data. And so we can do that through making sure contracts have the right bits and pieces in them and that the policies for data management that are coming from those who are managing the farm data, adhere to the code and those requirements that farmers have set. And so that code is the Data Governance Foundation that's over and above the lacking legal baseline for farm data that we can then use to encourage data sharing, okay? So if you haven't seen it before, the farm data code is available on the NFF website, there's a link there for you. And it looks like that picture on the left there. It's a very brief document. It's got six high level principles with a whole lot of statements under each one. And I'll cover what the topics are in a second. And then we also have the accompanying certification program is where we actually look at the data management policies and the terms and conditions for providers. And when I say providers, I mean anyone that's collecting, managing or sharing farm data. So it includes researchers as well. It's not just about technology platforms. And we actually do an assessment desktop based assessment which means we look at their documents and then we say whether they meet the different principles in the code. And those that get 100% on the audit report get certification. And you can also see a list of the already certified providers on the website. So far, mainly technology platforms. One is coming from actually the Western Australian department of private industry. So they've created data platform. So we've got some government in there as well. But so far many private companies. So I'd love to see more research projects actually coming through. So I'm gonna tell you a little bit more about the certification process and how that works in case any of you would be coming to actually do it. And so the certification, the code is based around these six principles. And that's all the certification questions are also based on. So transparency in the first instance is making sure that contracts contain some minimum requirements around who the contract is between, what's the data that's being, that's in scope, can you get a copy of your data? Where is it stored? What are the retention rules? How do you terminate the contract? And also what are the risks around it? Then we've got fairness, which is making sure that the data is not being used for any, in a various purposes, that might affect farmers negatively. And also to make sure that if that data is used by the provider to create some value, that farmers get some share of that value back. So they get recognition for contributing. That doesn't mean, always mean monetary value. It could take some other form, but we want that recognition that the farm data did create additional value. Then we've got, third, we've got control and controls about making sure that if you ask for your data to be deleted, then it can be, that will be actioned. That you can also control who the data is shared with, including parties of your choice. And then portability is making sure you can get a copy of your data, whatever you've put in, for example, to a platform. Five is security, which is quite obvious. We know we've got a lot of security risks now out in the IT world. So that we've got a quite a comprehensive security checklist that is part of the certification. And that is based on the Australian cybersecurity center guidelines. And then last, we've got compliance here, number six, which is about making sure that farm data is not disclosed unless required by law and that the farmer is notified if possible of any such disclosure. So that's our six principles. And that's what the certification is based on. And so why would you follow the code and even get certified? So for farmers, it's knowing what providers they can trust and having NFF give that independent stamp of approval. We also provide a summary of the terms and conditions back to the farmer and that's published as part of the audit report online. Farmers still advise to get their own legal advice. So, but what we do is give them that first look to say, look, here's a summary of the terms and conditions. If you don't like what you're seeing, then it's saving them time so they don't have to then go through the entire contract. But if they're going to be accepting that contract, they still need to read it, make sure that they've provided informed consent. But the goal really is to give the farmers as much information and as quickly and upfront as possible so they can make a good decision for when they are going to be handing over their data to anyone. And for providers, and again, that includes research, it's a way to create goodwill and differentiate yourself and prove best practice. If you are doing good things, it's a way for you to show that you are. And I've spoken with a few different research institutions and some of the universities who have got a lot of research running. There's a lot of big soil information program going on. And so there's a lot of people wanting to get data from farmers and farmers, do you want some level of assurance with what will be happening with their data? And so the other role of the code is to educate providers on what farmers' wishes are. And that's really how the code came about in the first place is that we were seeing all these problems. So on top of the precision to decision report which identified the trust issues, there were other problems that were being reported by farmers, such as I've been putting my data into this platform for five years and now it's been sold overseas, like who's got my data now, what's happened to it? Also, I want to move off it and I can't because I can't get a copy of my data, so I'm trapped. So there's the problems that are kind of coming from the ground up as well as the research and the policies that have been done through reports like the precision to decision report. So who is certification for, as I mentioned, it is for projects, so research projects will be included, but mainly for products and services that have direct contracts with farmers. So that's a really important thing because the Privacy Act doesn't cover farm data, we need to peg this certification to an actual contract and make sure that contract is as favorable to farmers as possible because that is the only legal recourse that they have because they don't have legislation to fall back on. So if you've got a research project, you can get certified. Anyone that's handling farm data that does not have a direct contract with farmers, you can still use the code, you can still apply the principles, you just can't get certified. And I'm always super happy to help anyone, if they've got questions about how they could do that. Some examples of organizations that have approached us to talk about being able to apply the code that don't have direct contracts with farmers. Sometimes I like the supermarkets or retailers where they, there are a few steps removed from the farm gate. So they can still do the right thing with the data when they get it, if they choose to. So when we get to the Q&A section, I'll be interested in some of your use cases and examples of how you collect farm data. So a little bit more about the certification. So as I mentioned, it's for product services and projects. We review the terms and conditions and all the data policies. And the legal recalls for farmers is through that contract, through the terms and conditions. We don't look at the product quality. So we can't attest to saying, oh look, you should go with this piece of software because we've assessed it. We're not looking at whether it does a good job and it has good functionality. We're really just looking at the data management part. And anyone who gets assessed gets an audit report, but only those who get 100%, meet the principles 100% get certified. So here's an example of the audit report I showed you before. Probably a thing to note here is not everyone's going to get 100%. And that is absolutely expected with where we know that industry is at the moment. And we have set the code above. So some of the, so it's above the Privacy Act. So even if you apply the Privacy Act to farm data as is, we actually have some extra requirements. So for example, one of the requirements is that all data breaches get reported to farmers under the code. We're in the Privacy Act, only those events that assess this of high significance have to be reported. That's why we don't, sometimes we don't find out that a data breach has occurred until later when the investigation shows that more data is leaked than you thought. But by then, you may have lost more information than if you've been told in the first place. So we want farmers to be able to have that to be able to make their own decision of whether that data breach is going to impact them rather than leaving that with the provider to decide on their behalf. So that's one example of where the code is above what the Privacy Act is for personal information. And so yeah, I think just to really drive that point home is that practices are fairly good right now, but we have set the bar higher and we really, what we really wanna do is uplift the expertise and the knowledge around this stuff in industry and we know that's going to take time. So we really want people to participate and improve and be transparent about what they're doing because that's acting in good faith and building trust with farmers even if you're not getting 100%, you're still putting your information out there and being honest about what you're doing. So that's really important. Having said that though, we have had quite a few providers change their terms and conditions and put extra data policies on their websites and even change some of their platforms to make sure that for example, if they weren't getting consent to change terms and conditions before and now they have a pop-up and you have to reconcent to have an opportunity. So there is definitely willingness to adapt the current practices, which is excellent to see. Great, so what really we're asking the community to do is for farmers to actually actively start asking providers if they've been assessed and certified because this code is really for them. It's come through the Farmer's Federation through all the members and the committees and gotten the farmer's stamp of approval. And so now it's something that we can use as that benchmark and farmers will be looking for their audit reports on the NFF website. So we're doing a whole lot of campaigns with farmers as well to make sure they're aware of it and that we already started certifying projects and providers. And then for providers, of course, to make sure they've got those right policies that give farmers control of farm data and that they are getting assessed and certified and for everyone to give feedback on the code because this is the document where we can bring where we can get on the same page about what's good or not good to do with farm data. And so that code, it really is our data governance foundation. It's the benchmark that we're measuring against and that's how we're going to build trust and doing it together and contributing to how the code actually evolves and making sure that it's fair. So it's not just setting an impossible benchmark but also understanding from the provider's side what's practical and possible to do. And that's been actually a very key thing where you have involved technology and research on our working groups to make sure that what we're proposing is actually feasible. So that's been really important that it's a very, it's a code that can be applied in real life. All right, wonderful. So what I might do now is show you the data sharing agreement as well. Now, Kylie, you're going to share these slides aren't you? So people have my contact details. That's right, yes. I will share the slides after the session. Okay, stop sharing and then I'll just get the data agreement. How are we going for time? I've got about 10 minutes left. Oh, absolutely, plenty of time. Oh, good, good, good. Can you see a Word document? Yes, we can. Thanks, Kylie. Zoom is so much quicker than Teams. That's really blowing me away. Okay, wonderful. So we've got the code and the certification. Now, one of the other supporting pieces of work that aligns to the code is the data sharing agreement that has been developed by Food Agility CRC. So that was actually done in conjunction with one of the law firms, Minta Ellison. And it's quite a, I would say a very comprehensive document. Some people say it's long. I say it's very comprehensive. Now, we have actually worked on also making this very flexible. So it's very comprehensive but it's very flexible for a few different situations. And how it's flexible is it has these questions at the back. One scroll and put your eyes. So what we have at the back is a questionnaire where you can answer some of these questions and then it guides you to cut out certain clauses to make sure that it's as tailored as possible for your situation. So depending whether you've got one of transfers or ongoing or both ongoing and how many parties you've got doing the actual data sharing or these kinds of things, you can go through here and then start cutting out sections from the actual main body of the document. So I think what I really want to get across is that it may look quite scary when you open it. And it's, so it's about 20 pages of clauses and then another 20 pages of schedules. So I'll just explain about how that works. But then you can cut things out as you go because it covers a lot of scenarios and you can kind of take what you need. That's how it can accommodate a lot of different situations. Now it is mainly targeted for research. So it's not, this is not, it's not actually designed to be the terms and conditions of a software platform. It's like we have a one to many, like one platform to many users types of agreements. This is a more of a one to one. So if you've got a research project and you're going to individual farmers and you're signing those with them, then this is actually the perfect template to be using. So I'll show you a little bit about, so the body of it will have quite normal clauses like you would expect in a contract and then you'll have sections that you can cut out depending on what you need and don't need. And all of these have been aligned to the data code version two. So it's, if you're using this agreement, you've pretty much, you've covered about 90% of the data code already. Where the difference happens is in the schedules. So share what a schedule looks like. So a bulk of this document is actually these schedules where you fill in exactly what you're doing. So for example, be what is the data you're sharing? Are there any exclusions? Who is the farm business that you're dealing with? Is there any private data in the shared data? What's the method of transfer? So a lot of this is where you actually go and fill in what you're doing to communicate to farmers what it is that you're going to do with their data, where it's gonna go, how long you're gonna keep it for, those sorts of things. So in a way, it's almost like a data management plan rolled into a contract. So you get a two for one. And so once you've kind of gone through here and filled it all in, that really is the basis for how you'll be handling that data. There is also, now if I, are you still seeing the same screen or do you see disclosure statement now? Still seeing the schedule three data sharing details. I'll just show you the other document that goes with the, so the other, yep, there it is, thanks. So the other document, the other template that accompanies the data sharing agreement is this disclosure statement. And it's like a couple of pages, it's a five, I think a six page summary of what's in there. It's like a cover page if you think about it that way. So she summarizes the contract. And so this is what you may actually present to farmers which really says, who are the data recipients? What is the data? How do I terminate this contract? What's the purpose for which data's shared? How will it be used? Who are the third parties who may receive the data? How will protected data specifically, which is subset, which is like the extra sensitive data? How will that be protected and managed? How will you handle breaches? How will you allow correction of data? How will you provide data portability? What's the, what are the policies for deletion? Any other benefits? All these line up with the data code as well. So you're kind of, you're giving this a summary of the contract here. And again, this can be that first thing that you show farmers and the rest of the agreement really just sits underneath it. So this is a quicker and an easier way to communicate with farmers and then those two documents go together. So there are the actual data sharing agreement mentions the disclosure, this disclosure template in there. So this is still legally binding. This disclosure template is still legally binding because it's covered. It's actually part of the data sharing agreement. This is a quick way. So most like that summary again for your data management plan of what's the data? Who's getting it? Where is it? How long are you gonna hold it for? Like those kind of top 10 questions around data that everyone wants to know. And then again, that can dig deeper into the detail in the actual data sharing agreement. But it all lines up together. All right, fantastic. I think I might do some questions now. That's a lot of information and we've kind of got two topics. So we've got the data code and certification. We've got the data sharing agreement, but we can just see what kind of questions come in. Thank you so much, Gabby. That is super, super interesting. And I'll just disclose to the group here. I'm a farmer's daughter. So I'm looking at all of this with my farmer's daughter hat on more than my ARDC hat on. I've got to be honest. I'll get the ball rolling. I've got about a million questions. Again, wearing that farmer's daughter hat, could you elaborate a little bit more on the engagement process that you had with farmers in the process of developing both of these documents? And did you have any engagement with particular sections of the farming community or with some segments more vocal than others? I'd love to know a bit more about that. So the initial, the version one of the data code actually came out in February, 2020. That was before I had joined the NFF, but the original working group, there was an original working group that had farmers on it. So definitely some cattle farmers and some crop. And then there was research and technology, but that version of the code also went through all the committees of the NFF, just like this time where I had worked on version two to update it just with some new things that have happened and some additional protections for farmers. And the way I engaged was through one-on-one interviews, talking at some of the committees and some of the gatherings and the open days from the NFF. But generally the feedback has been excellent. Can you just take care of the stuff because we don't have time. We've got to pay stuff and it's not about digital literacy or anything like that at all. It's literally about time and priorities. And farmers having to be an accountant and a lawyer and a tech person and a farmer on top of all those other things. And this is something that just takes some of the burden off. Absolutely. And yeah, certainly speaking from what my family were like, they were organic farmers on just a few acres north of the Perth. And these sorts of things would happen in the evening when it's too dark to work outside or if it's bucketing down with rain and you can't be outside actually doing stuff on the farm. So like certainly for my family, recognition that this stuff's important but you've got to grow the start to go look after it and everything as the top priority. This is the paperwork behind the scenes. It's actually a really interesting thing that has come out in another session. We had a couple of months ago and it was in the health sphere where they were working on making consent forms that were much shorter and in layperson language that were much easier for people to understand and therefore to actually agree to. So really interesting to see a parallel here in a completely different sphere of visit. And actually the reason I got this job because I'd come from health and I was working on a digital tool to automate simpler consent forms for genomics. Yeah, and so that was like one of the reasons I was like, oh, informed consent, that's really important. Let's go from 40 pages. How do we go from 40 pages to five? Like consent papers and often in hospitals they're still on paper forms. So digitizing them but also trying to make them more user friendly while offering the same protections and it's a really hard balancing act which is why even with the data sharing agreement here you still need all the legal detail to make sure it's legally sound but you can have this six page cover letter and these schedules where you can kind of write your own stuff and put just putting what you're doing in plain English and then the legal clauses kind of bring it all together and make it legally sound. Yes, it's a hard thing to balance. But if you get it right, huge benefits to be had to everybody. Alexis, any good question? I just heard my camera on so you didn't have a whole lot of black squares to look at. It was really interesting. I think I'm thinking I work at the University of Adelaide in the library and I and Karen Barthes also on here support the agricultural researchers in data enabled research as well. And we've had a lot of hands on work with them in recent in the last year because of some changes from the funder around data management expectations, major funder in this area. So yeah, it's really interesting to us. Thank you for the presentation. I find I'm thinking a lot about how this I don't know how widely familiar we are with the code. I may actually just have not had opportunity to hear about it from my researchers but an interesting challenge for the university is that if we were talking about certification against the code, it would be about whether the projects would be certified which is what's most likely to be the application but then some of the obligations that the person who's being certified to particularly thinking about data breaches and that kind of thing. That would be the project administration only has a certain lifespan and so then that's actually more of a university commitment and we sort of what would be the best level upon which to act upon this because I think in practical terms the project level is the only because we do subcontract to farmers to collect data as many I think all the other universities here probably do as well. So yeah, just thinking about the application about yeah. I like that, okay. So yeah, if you're making that longer term commitment it would have to be a whole of university kind of commitment but then- Yeah, if you're holding the data for past the life of the project then yeah, absolutely. And we do because we have a, we have legal requirements around how long we have to hold certain kinds of data and particularly things that have an impact on the environment, which much of this sort of falls can fall into that category. It could be 25 years or that kind of thing. But then when we have things about our security response processes particularly like data breaches if that's what we're concerned about that's very much focused on personal information which means we're falling exactly in the gap that you've talked about this needing to address. So lots of food for thought for us. Yeah, good, thank you. Yeah, I mean, if you had a project you wanted to pilot or put through the assessment that would be really good learning for us as well. Like you're saying, but there's multiple levels of responsibility that might occur. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, Alexis, I know the project you're talking about. I'm normally based at UWA and UWA was involved in that too. Oh my goodness, it threw up so many issues particularly around orphan data and people who'd left the university and trying to track that down was impossible. And then yeah, now undergoing a real education process through School of Agriculture and also Institute of Agriculture with big on agriculture year in WA to try to set up better practices moving forward. And it's really brought up an issue for the library to resolve which is who's gonna be the contact person with that data once the person leaves the university and we haven't actually resolved that issue. So big issue for agriculture but data management across the board. So yeah, it's definitely caused a lot of head scratching. It was a tumultuous year working with that project but I think the hard parts exactly just show what the value of it was that we did need to improve practices and that but also it was a real lesson and perhaps this is where it has a relevance to this as well it was real lesson in how much the expectations of the funder can be a motivating lever for change more so than the university just going oh, this is good practice or that kind of thing. And so perhaps when it comes to encouraging adoption of the code working with funders could be one of the various motivators in the space to say, well, you know, are you compliant with the code or something like that? Because yeah, it was really many of the messages we were getting across to this research community last year we're not out of step with what the university just expects as normal but it was a step change. It was a considerable cultural change because and it was motivated to do it because of the funder. Right, yeah. In fact, I had a question, Gabby, about where the line is drawn in terms of farm research data. I read the data code. It's not long, guys. It's only a few pages. And it's got a handy flowchart because I'm also not a fan of text. I love pictures. So yeah, it's a handy flowchart for explaining what farm data is. Yeah, so I was confused about the research data part. So am I right in thinking that the data that is actually generated on the farm by farmers that's farmers done. The question is, if they provide that data to researchers, is the data that's generated as a result of that research and the analysis still considered farm data or is it not? So that's when the value in the fairness comes in then farmers should get some value back but it won't always be farm data. So depending if it was collected on farm, definitely it's farm data. If it was collected, trying to think of a situation where it wouldn't be. Yeah, so if you've derived it from farm data, so if you created some, a new data set for example, then it wouldn't be but the some value should be provided back to the farmer. Yeah, absolutely. And it does raise the point of aggregated data as well. So I guess if your farm's data is in an aggregated data set, you can't tell which bit is your farm, then it's not farm data. But I guess if it's aggregated and you can tell which farm it's from, then it is farm data. That's right. Well, it's easy way. It's more about can you identify, if it's anonymized, then a whole lot of the code doesn't actually apply. Yeah. If it's truly anonymous. And we do say is depending on your context, it's important to work with the farmers that you are talking to to make sure that you don't make a decision on their behalf about what is identifying or not. Because as I've been discovering talking to farmers, for example, turns out cattle DNA is very much identifying to a particular area and sometimes even to a farm. Because of a particular, because of the breeding program that they may have. And so, it's not just about location or an address or a GPS location or names and phone numbers. Like it might be plant DNA or animal DNA or even sometimes the shape of the farm. There's many things that, especially me as a not on farmer, I wouldn't have known and perhaps some researchers out there might not have thought. And so, the message is just make sure you talk to the farmers, talk to them about what you're going to do with the data and then see if they've got any concerns. And that's really how this all, it's just about bringing the different perspectives together and making sure everyone's comfortable. Yeah, absolutely. There any other questions out there? I can see a couple of people turn on video, which is fantastic. Yeah. I just had a question around whether the data agreement template, one of a better word, whether there was any consultation or thought around notifiable data in that. So, as a farmer, if I'm using a platform and I need to record that I've got the mouth or I need to record that I've got some sort of invasive pest, which is notifiable. Is that included in that? No. We hadn't, it wasn't any consideration for regulatory requirements or anything like that, but there are sections where, for example, we can kind of add in additional terms and conditions that will suit your particular situation for sure. So, that's like in that schedule you can kind of fill in like, you know, and also you need to do this. So, there might be some special conditions that you want to add. Yeah. There is a section on data quality and again, this is one of the suits research more than commercial platforms. There is a section on data quality where if you do go through that questionnaire at the back and customize the agreement and you say that you do need data of a certain quality, then there is a clause for that and then you can specify in the schedule, you know, what the requirements are. So, if you need a minimum set or fields or a template that you need it to come in, that's often, I know, important for research because you need to harmonize all that data from many sources and that's a pain. Yeah, so. Yeah, I was just thinking that, you know, if you're running some sort of platform or, for example, you have an app that, you know, assists a farmer to track events on an animal throughout its life, you may end up finding that there's stuff being recorded that under regulations needs to be notified and it's like, yes, the onus is on the farmer to do that but is it also a responsibility of the platform? Ah, right. So, that comes under the compliance section number six which is legal disclosure. So, any disclosure of the data required by law can just happen, like that's not, the code can't stop you, comply with the law. Yeah, yeah, no, no, no, that's right. So, that's where the, I think, yeah, that's where that section kind of kicks in. Thank you, Joe. Hi, Gabby. I've been here from Ag Vic. We have a couple of projects in traceability space mostly and again, traceability being all about collecting data and sharing data at different levels. We have been looking into the exact issue that the farm data code is trying to address. I have a couple of questions, but before I jump into those, I just wanted to know if there is, like, is there any industry system out there, especially around order management that is looking into the certification process or has there been any adoption that you are aware of from industry and... For order management, sorry, did you say? Orchard, sorry. Orchard management. No, we have not specifically, no, we haven't had a specific... Okay. In your, I mean, you can have a look on the, in the list at the moment. We've got a couple, we've got an integration company, so Petri Intelligence's integration company. We've got Farm Simple. I think that's more for cattle management and we've got a couple coming up, but they're not, they're not horticulture specific. They're more general. Okay. So we, the way our projects operate is that like, we do work with industry system and try and encourage them to, you know, adapt these sort of frameworks and their existing systems. So obviously that means they get audited and then the whole process that you just described. But we also have other projects where we look into developing new systems, addressing those gaps altogether. And I was just thinking, given that the farm data code is being proposed for auditing and then certification, is there any surveys or, you know, anything that we can do to put that code to be incorporated as part of the development itself from the inception of the system rather than after it's developed and being used? Yeah, absolutely. And so like as an example, I've been working with a couple of startups who don't even have their platform up and running yet, but they, and they don't even have their terms and conditions written, but they're already building the code into those terms and conditions. So they just do it once at the beginning and the run, they have to go back and retrofit their policies in the terms and the actual system. So it's good to start early and the certification is actually a checklist that guides you through how to meet the code. Okay. So if that was something you might be able to use, I can, you know, send me an email and then we'll have a chat and I'll share with you all the resources that maybe we can kind of make work for you. I think, yeah, that would be better because I did go through the video on the website and I can see the areas that we are trying to address but then within that specific areas, more detail in relation to what functionalities like the app might have, like because not all of them are designed, like in, so for instance, in our case, we want to have a data sharing functionality in the app and we're very mindful of the ownership and privacy and how it's being shared and user like creator being the center of all of that. But then I think we are like making sure that the underlying details of what it means to share that data from that functionality perspective, whether we are addressing those or not. Like, and if we can, thanks for saying that. So I think I'll send you email and maybe we can go through what we're trying to do and see if... Yeah, absolutely. It's a process, great. Thanks for that. But yeah, with the industry, I mean, we have had challenges. Industry is far behind from where research has been in terms of adoption of all of these and the biggest challenge we always run into is that the value for them in changing or anything that they do at the platform level or from legal perspective. And there's not always a very strong motivating factor from to encourage them to do that unless it's, I think before it was mentioned that if funding bodies are doing that as a requirement or... Yeah, but if you have any thoughts around how we can also encourage the participants in our research, them being industry systems working in that space, so we would welcome them. Yeah, definitely through funding. So if there's, if you've got grants or funding being made available, then some of the condition can be, for example, that the farm data code at least has been considered and they have to show their decision for getting certified or not. You know, ideally you would require that they get certified and that the data management policies would follow the code. But I know that's not always practical or possible. So is there some small steps we can take to lead up to that, the ideal? Yep. I think I'll, yeah, summarize what I said and send you an email maybe. Thanks so much, I love that. No, thanks, Abin. Great. Fantastic. Are there any other questions out there? I've got one more in fact, I've probably got hundreds, but yeah, any others from other audience members before I jump in again? Okay, my question was, yeah, you mentioned some of the changes that have occurred as a result of companies going through this certification process. For example, there might be, what was it, another pop-up screen to really make it clear that. Re-consent to changes in terms, yeah, that's a big one. Re-consent. Do you have any other examples you could share with us of changes that have happened since long ago? Security practices, like, you know, so many, especially, you know, small businesses who kind of, you know, just like less than 10 employees, you know, they don't have a security expert. They usually have some IT people or they've outsourced it, for example. So it's actually been really good to go through with them without the more in-depth security checklist that's part of the certification. Because some of the things where they're like, oh, okay, oh, yeah, okay, you know, they'll go, oh, that's a good thing to do. We just didn't think of that or know of that, you know, without going out and getting a security consultant, you know, paying a lot of money for security audits because they're so focused on just getting money in the door to get users on. And then you kind of start thinking about those other things, you know, I said, I'm not saying their apps are insecure. I'm just saying that it's a different level. Like you can go to levels of detail and being comprehensive around these things. Now, I've come from banking as well. So bank level security is, you know, insane, probably much like government. So, and we would never expect that level to be what startup would do. So we should have two visions of that security list for those who are under 10 million revenue and those who are over. And there's a higher requirement, you know, but even the basic one is kind of just, it has a lot of good prompts for those starting out as well. What are some of the other things? Just getting more information out on their website. So a lot of the providers are doing all the right things, but they don't describe it anywhere. So the contract isn't always the right. It's not the place to put everything in it, you know, about what you're doing. Sometimes you don't put your security policies in a contract, you know, there's other ways of communicating these things that don't have to be through the contract. So we actually, that's why we assess the contract and their data policies and what they communicate on their website, you know, make sure that whatever farmers are seeing has the full picture whether in whatever way or shape that comes across. So most of you have been keen to put up some like frequently asked questions or a page on their data policies or, you know, what they do or don't do with the data that's over and above the contract. Fantastic. Yeah, and I think it's an interesting idea that by following this process, you're encouraging best practice. And again, thinking back to when my parents were on the farm, when they started, I don't know what to be organic and back in the day, it was NASA with two A's on the end, National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia it stood for back in the memory bank. So they have different levels of certification. So there was a level B, which you got to put your orange stands on your hands or whatever it was that you were growing, which meant you were in transition from conventional, or you were just starting out in your organic farming, which is what they were doing. But then you could go to level A, which was the top level, with your green stickers. Oh, wow. And because from the outset, they knew they wanted to achieve this certification, that informed the practices in actually setting up the farm and how it was managed. So it was really high level guidelines for them to achieve on the way through, which was super helpful because although they're experienced farmers, they both grow up in wheat and sheep farms and switch into organic farming at that small scale. I've got to go out of this room and say, yeah, just gave them some guidelines to work with so that they could achieve it quickly. As I mentioned, I need to wrap this up because I'm getting kicked out of the making video at the top of the hour. Thanks again so much, Gabby. This has been super, super interesting and great to have a few people on the call who are actually working with farmers and agricultural data in different ways. So yes, I will share the link to the recording and the slides. And yeah, thank you and have a good day. Thanks so much. Bye. Thank you very much. Yeah.