AI and the Future of Policy Enforcement – The Inevitability Curve EP8

This is Textron tv. Hello, my name is Chris Blas. I am your host for another episode of the Inevitability Curve.

In this series, we take an interesting subject matter expert, like all our guests today, and we take an interesting topic and we try to see how we got to where we are today, what the shape of today really looks like. And with those in hand, perhaps, you know, give us some guidance about where we're going in the future. We have Mickey, now, I, I meant to ask you in the green room, I see Michelle there, but this is like, when you know somebody, you Facebook, you Mickey, right?

Yes. So am I allowed to say Mickey on the, on the air? You Are.

Mickey came from a childhood nickname when my, my maiden name is Fin In, and I was Mickey Finn. So when I first signed up for Facebook under False Pretenses, I was Mickey Finn and then added, you know, my actual real last names at the time. So Mickey is how I know when people are friends with me on Facebook that they know that name.

Right, right. As I, I love that, that little sort of nuance. So we were, you know, so we were talking, uh, um, in the green room about this.

So you have spent, so you started as a lawyer. And one of the things I love about doing these, these interviews, I, you know, I always go look at my friend's LinkedIn, go all the way back and you find things you didn't know. It's like, oh, and explain so much.

Sometimes A lot, maybe why I'm so argumentative all the time. I don't know. But, but, you know, and policy and, you know, major corporations and, you know, leading privacy and so forth.

And we find ourselves in this world today with AI and policy interpretation and supply chain, you know, for a lot of my, you know, focus these days. And it, and it just is a fascinating path. So the, the, lemme see if I can queue up, uh, you know, going back to the beginning of this.

Alright, so you, you got, you know, let's, let's make this one personal, right? So law, right? You know, you got interested in law for, for probably, you know, some interesting reasons, I'll let you say what they are.

But they led to all of this. Can you explain how that thought process worked? Yeah.

So it is, it, it took a little bit of a crooked path. I'll give you the, the abbreviated version. Um, when I first started, I have a BS degree as my undergraduate degree.

And the very first weekend I saw a little pink flyer requesting a research assistant for a robotics program. And I thought, oh, that's great. I'm a nerd.

I love that. So it was a, uh, it was an industrial robot arm and we were teaching in an elementary school to profoundly handicapped children. And I did that for all four years of my undergraduate work.

So really getting into applied technology, helping real people solve real human problems and all sorts of sort of corollary issues that came up. So the kids would learn how to hack the machine so that they could play and they could make a mess and they would make everyone very upset. And the, then we would have a community of, of laughter myself as just barely not a child myself with these kids.

So when I left, I thought I was gonna get a PhD in clinical psych, which was really my focus. And self-efficacy was my senior thesis on how self beliefs and, and self enablement and tool enablement using new technologies actually can lower our cortisol raise our T cells. Remember, this is now the height of the AIDS conflict, um, going on conflict pandemic, you know, super medic.

I don't know what it was, everything. Um, so I went down and I interviewed for a PhD program, and this fellow said to me, young lady, you are not a scientist. And I was deeply wounded.

Oh, yes I am. And he said, no, no, you're an advocate. So go and do anything in advocacy for a year and if you want back into the program.

So I moved to New York City in a huff and, um, got a job as a paralegal. Uh, my mother was an intellectual property lawyer. She was the head of IP for ETS.

And my dad, of course, was a systems engineer by day and a security architect by day and at night he practiced also as a patent attorney, so filing patents on behalf of his friends. So I come from a very broken geeky home and I said, I'll never do technology, I'll never do law. So I end up going to law school and graduating and falling headfirst into patent law.

So I started thinking about the world in ephemeral rights and ownership and invention and applied invention. And so when I happened to flop my face forward after being a trial lawyer for a few years into Sun Microsystems, I encountered young Scott McNeely, who infamously has said and restated again, it again, you have zero privacy and followed it up with a hardy get over it. But what he didn't recognize is that a patent, uh, litigator tears apart and interrogates those claims piece by piece.

And when you're producing things, you know, wit Diffy was down the hall. John Gage was over there. We had containers, we had middleware that controlled supply chain.

We already had orchestrated IOT systems. The only reason you would fuddle with Solaris is to have a secure enclave capable a operating system. So that was really when I first got into it.

I was the legal support. And then in 2003, I left the legal department to become son's first Chief privacy officer in a business role Right? Way back machine.

And I've never looked back. It, I, I, I swear to God, you know, our whole community is, is just a bunch of bunch. And and they will, you know, future generation will be making movies, you know, they'll, they'll, they'll run the gamut.

Maybe it might be two a year before they get to me, but they will, because what a bunch of odd stories. You can't get there from here in that time. You can't, no, you're not gonna go take a course in XY in what we're doing today because those courses Didn't exist.

The very first computer law course was offered. I went to Fordham Night School in, in New York City in the very first computer law course by Dave Bender was taught at that time, and it really didn't cover privacy. There was, you know, the 95 act hadn't happened.

Um, ironically enough, my dad had a book on his bookshelf from 1974 called The Right to Privacy, and it had a little, um, cartoon computer programmer on the cover. So I had actually read that and written a paper about it, uh, in high school, having no idea whatsoever. And that in that era, the real fear with these massive databases that were owned by governments rather than private, um, activities, we really, we really didn't have the capabilities that we have now to exploit each other the way we do.

Well. And, and I think it's, you know, in understanding these arcs we're on, you know, and, and you know, there's a lot of anxiety today. I tend to think, you know, we, we always, you know, Rosie blast the past, there's a lot of anxiety in the past too, right.

You know, our own past and all the past and everything else, you know, but, but you know, to get an idea of where we're actually likely to go some, it's important to understand, you know, the maturity level of cybersecurity is my favorite. Right? When I first got on the internet in 19 90, 91 or whatever, use net tax and everything else, trying to avoid not being a sale.

My, my one sales role in my life, right? I trying not to actually spend my time doing that. I discovered this, I'd argue politics on, on the, on using that.

And then the, uh, oh, I always forget whether it was the Good Times virus, the I Love You Virus, the one that wasn't a virus. It was just, it was hope, right? Right.

And it was just, but it was just an email that said, Hey, tell all your friends. Don't open this email if it says, you know, you know, good times in the, in the, and, and it, and everybody did and brought down the actual internet people sending 'em back and forth saying, please stop sending these. And we're applying all to all the news groups.

Yep. And, you know, I I just, you know, you know, former landscaper just sitting there going, I don't really know these people must really know what's going on, but I think I could've said, it's not a virus. It's not a virus, it's a hoax.

And I said, it actually is a virus, you know, as code that somebody wrote that's communicating, it's coming through in my optic nerve, executing my brain, making my fingers move. Right? And I yelled down and, and, and these days, of course, you know, Fred Cohen is, is one of my best friends.

We do all sorts of stuff together. And the guy that gave us the term computer virus in his PhD thesis, right? And so we're just, we're just figuring this stuff out along the way.

And the pol you know, policy hacking and policy itself is my favorite topic and has been for the last decade or so. You know, one more cryptographic toolkit or whatever is just tedious to the point policy. Look at how we did policy when you were first getting into it.

You know, we read, we printed things out, we read them with yellow highlighter and marked things out and correlated in our brains and wrote other things down. And that was the speed you can process that at, right? And now I look at, you know, supply chain.

And I want, you know, as a a, so the National Manufacturing Institute of Scotland, oddly enough, is this organization worked with over the last five years, um, with the digital bill of materials thing, the supply chain thing. And the use case is we work with Rolls Royce and Boeing as partners, and if I am a Turkish Air Force, uh, flight mechanic, I'm standing there on a ladder looking at a Boeing at, at a Rolls Royce Turbo fan in a Boeing airframe. And I wanna know the version of software that was running on the radio plasma forge that made that blade.

And I wanna know now, right? You know, and I probably have the policy relationship with me give you that information already between me and, you know, you know, the attorney Air Force and Boeing, and Boeing and Royce and World Royce and subcontractors. And if I have six to 10 months on all the time on Earth, I can find that out, right?

Um, but where we are right now is world where, you know, I'll just say ai, right? Where we're currently calling ai, we'll Call it AI for sure, but we know it's not really Largely, but, but for our purposes here, yeah. You know, I keep trying to help have the conversations.

It's like, just imagine you had a thousand paralegals and all of the time you could say in the middle of some business process and so forth and say, what are, you know, what's my relationship? The supply chain is a good analogy for that. You know, can I go back to my supplier and ask them for information that they got from their supplier?

Supplier, right. And just look at the contracts, just tell me if I can or not. If I can't, I'll do it.

And that's the difference. The time to transparency AI bring it to policy is, uh, you know, that that's really, you know, think about this conversation. That's the the fascinating thing to me.

Yeah. Imagine your organization really couldn't know your both your environment all the time. Yeah.

Well, and remember, you know, like, think about even 10 years ago, you're standing up on that ladder, you know, what was your duty of knowledge and care was, you know, like nobody expected you to go and read for 30 days and, and catch up. You just kind of winged it a little bit or ish it a little bit or maybe had a standard operating procedure. Now I think the expectation is that, you know, that you should have known that you in the moment, even with your body, your voice said, what is the version?

And are there any clauses impeding my, you know, right. To fix, for example. Right.

And that's, it's, you know, how shape it, it it's transformative. It really is not having internet because, And also like Doing it otherwise. Oh, No.

And, and, and imagine too, like the transformation, as you said, I love, I love this thing Chris. Like, remember that viruses are social creatures. I always look at man and machine connected in this system.

They don't work if the human monkey doesn't, you know, finish the, the chain and connect the wires, right? So imagine the mental load now of, it used to be well just crank to the left twice and you're done. And that's what, you know, and that's, you go in and you do it nine to five every day.

And now I think the expectation is that people are supposed to magically, without any training, without any culture behind it, be able to constantly process thousands of years of wisdom and, and knowledge correctly and incorrectly and somehow operate in this new world in an ethical construct that we've never faced before. So there's a lot of complexity here that I think really hasn't gotten its due. And we haven't really said, let's have a breather here and figure out, do these policies make sense?

Are there new policies that need to arise? And, and what are the kind of old and creaky things that are, are actually impeding our way, getting to where we need to be in this new world? Yeah.

And I see that again, challenges and opportunities. Right. You know, you know, one of my premises for this whole inevitability or con, uh, concept is that, you know, we slowly build up, yeah.

We build aho ahead of us. So some resistance, and the closer and closer we get to the more we're, you know, the pressure comes arc around it and it's doesn't really matter specifically what it's right. And this is one of those things where you, you look out in the future, in the supply chain world and say, okay, 30 years from now, imagine you're gonna operate a power system and it takes 90 days to get this piece of information.

And no, you're no, no, that, that's not in the realm of possibility. So sometime between now and then, you know, some version of ourselves, 30 years from now, we'll know what the answer is 'cause we've seen it. Right.

And, and, you know, there's this volume metric, uh, sort of aspect of it so much, too much, too many, you know, I've seen, and I've been at this long enough now I've seen this over, over again. It's like, well, we couldn't possibly do that many per day. It's like, well, we're gonna have to deal with that many today, so we're obviously going to completely change the way we do this now.

And then we Do, we adapt to it. I mean, it's like the four minute mile, right? Nobody could do it until ban banister, I think his name is the English guy, did it.

And then that year, seven more people achieved the unachievable that the human body wasn't capable of. I think there's, there's a lot of that, um, assumption of what the hard limits are. And then I love this, this notion of an inevitability curve.

Even. It's hard to say. There's, there's a book, I think, I think I the author, right?

Is, is, uh, Wallace Stagner. It's called The Angle of Repose. And so right now, I feel like what the angle of repose is in, you know, ci, sub civic engineering, civil engineering is, so if you think of like a bunch of rocks at the top of this hill, the rocks can be data, they can be knowledge of ai, they can be capability, they can be open sourcing, whatever it is.

All of these rocks, we're sort of seeing poised at the top of this mountain side right now and getting to the inevitability curve of where they're going to be and where what, what is the angle of repose where the earth stops moving long enough for us to kind of get a grip measure where we are proceed forward, either climb up the hill or walk around that hill. And I think that's where we are today, is we have for, I'll, I'll call it a hundred years of compute, asked ourselves the question, can we, and I think from this point onward, really from last November, when the common imagination hit the 20-year-old practice of various forms of machine learning and artificial intelligence, and how they have an expectation to be able to use that. I think the question for the next millennium will be, should we not, can we, we know we can, should we?

Well, and let me, let me bend that towards, you know, a, a a a word You've been associated with an off log, which is privacy, right? Mm-hmm. And talking about this in the agreement a little bit.

And I, and I always, you know, always thinking one of my earliest conversations online about security and so forth, and, and somebody I met online was traveling somewhere and they're bringing a camera on their front porch. Mm-hmm. So while they're on vacation, they're gonna see this.

So like 90, 91 or something like this, a lot, so many people are going, oh my God, that's terrible, blah, blah. I'm just say, well, in the future there gonna be cameras everywhere. It's like, no, they're not.

I hate it. And it's like, there are right there. Are they just religious?

They are. And now in, in cybersecurity and threat intelligence and information sharing and ISAC and everything else now, supply chain, you know, I, I think we're, you know, maturing to the point we can have the conversation where to be clear, you know, you know, you mentioned your, your father and intellectual property. Right.

You know, that's, you know, this canary that old nine, nine phrase for me. 'cause the first time it came up, I started looking at, it's like, well, how are you protecting your intellectual property today? Right?

Oh, yeah. Um, hope. Yeah.

I mean, I wrote a contract and I hired some people. I'm assuming they knew the terms of the contract. When they're talking, they say, no, you, you, you intellectual property, you know, the, the loss of intellectual property is a real thing, but we want to have to the point that I'm not making appropriate access.

Right, right. And, And this is the, whether it's supply chain or access to public cameras or access to information about governance, you know, very good friend I have here, you know, is, you know, the political opposite of me at the moment. Uh, but, uh, but we absolutely do agree.

You know, it's like you can't tell why is that sign up there? You know, it's a state land. He is a, you know, seven, 5-year-old fisherman LA's whole life and used to be able to go to back to this place.

But now there's a sign and there's a, you know, wire across the road and you can't go there. But sometimes there's a sign and the wire's down. Right.

And yeah, you could look it up maybe if you had old hour and a half Google and a good cell phone signal. But I, I, I think, you know, I, I think in whether it's policy governance, like the companies you're probably working with today mm-hmm. Like my own little world, or whether it's, you know, governance and government national, you know, um, state, local, municipal, I think we have a future we're looking at where the things are already public.

So what, what, you know, my friend Dave and I were talking about saying, we're saying, you know, he's got a drone. That's how we met. He flew the drone over my boat.

So going by, and it's like we're in a public area. There's cameras, there can be ca you know, my assumption of privacy is zero. I literally don't care.

Right. And, but I would like to know if you know that if there is a, a government-owned camera here, and it is used by law enforcement, it would be nice if there was a rule that said, you know, and you're, I'm identified in that picture. You let me know unless you, you know, grabbed me from, or whatever.

It's Right. There should be some policy that just fits all of this. Exactly.

Everything from business losses and, you know, competitive issues and so forth to the social, you know, distrust of everything we have. This is the sort of ability we, we as professionals may have to weave into things to solve a lot of this by letting people see the policies that are embedded. Absolutely.

And, and I think also, so let me, let me take a, a slight rewind. So I think, um, you know, this comes from my, my dad's kind of architecture brain of, I always have to define what it is that we're writing a policy or writing code to support in, in lieu of a human following the policy. We can have code following the policy, but to me it's all the same.

It is, there's a business rule somewhere. And so the way I functionally define privacy, and particularly digital privacy, is that it is privacy is the authorized processing end-to-end credit grave storage counts according to moral, ethical, third place legal and commercially and culturally sustainable principles. So when you unpack that kind of fishtail of rules, you, you, you look at authorization as exactly your expectation might be, I'm in a public park, or what I think is a public park, but now is roped off as private land.

So my expectation might be to be observed by my humans around me by drones. And everybody's carrying a little supercomputer in their pocket. So your expectation might be that someone at least temporarily films you, there is no authorization to profile you in that context.

There's no authorization to harm you in that context. There may be an authorization to find you if you are on the naugh, the naughty list for law enforcement or, or, or a deadly dad or something. So you can see where, when we start to look at the data supply chain traveling through, is it authorized?

Is it being processed by whom and or many whom? And then should you do it should, should you follow someone around with a drone? Even though we're technologically capable of doing that to everyone who enters a public park.

I don't think that any of us would feel like that's a feeling of safety or wellbeing or even, you know, godly morality. Morality gets sticky. 'cause it was very emotive.

Ethics is a layer down from there. And I'm, I'm technical, technically probably wrong, but I've been wrong for years and no one's corrected me yet. But the way I look at ethics in a, in a construct of a system, in a supply chain, is ethics are the common rules of the road.

They always proceed the legal problem because we're fussing around with new stuff. We don't have a law that covers it, or we're trying desperately to like pull up our short sheeted beds to cover new stuff. Right?

So ethics are always kind of that, what are the rules of the road here? What's the expectation? What's within my brand as an individual?

What's within my company brand? Um, and so on, right? Your ethics at, at a big fancy 12 course dinner are very different than your expectations at McDonald's.

So how long you're supposed to be there, how long I'd be comfortable setting up shop, whether someone is serving me, whether I'm busing my own tables, all of those are rules, right? So every interaction that you have that can be attached to a human being follows this trail. And part of I think the, the joy of my expectation of both how policy and privacy on the machine level can start to evolve is because we have so much more processing power and capability, we do have the opportunity to start to look at data packets as discreet intellectual property nuggets.

And you can start applying policy. And when I first did what I called POL, my privacy markup language, years and years ago, I had this notion that like a file about Mickey Finn would be a discreet thing. And then anytime it moved and someone interacted with it, you could add a layer of markup language.

But it turns out that that ball gets really gummy and, and really bogged down really fast. It's too expensive to do it that way. I think that we are evolving to a place where we can start to have, um, tagged marked whatever technological thing you wanna do to get there and curated sets that allow us to say, I you're permissioned now.

Um, but maybe not in six months. Or it could be that I want to be able to destroy key pair and turn it into an encrypted lump somewhere down the chain and have sort of my own personal commander control. Um, or I wanna have a way to have, in a banking context, I wanna be able to have a know my customer role so that I know that only authorized investors are participating, there's no fraud.

And that, that some transaction may be to pinned to a ledger is actually as sound as it used to be carrying a piece of paper that was notarized down at a courthouse. Right? So we've got sort of these evolutions, you can see where this goes, but you have to start with a common understanding of what is privacy and how does that fit in with secrecy, which is a very small subsection of privacy.

Very, very small. Right. And I wish we had more time because that Yeah, yeah.

Secrecy and security are these just lovely words we use all the time. It's like, yeah. And, and, you know, early in my career, I would make a point of, now it's like, okay, fine.

You know, make me secure. It's like, okay, Yeah. What does that mean?

That's like, make me full. That's like, you can me a sandwich and I'm full forever. Right?

But, and, and secrecy, you know, and, and again, I think we're driving towards this, you know, because I, I gotta talk to folks all types all the time across the economic and political spectrum and so forth. And I think we share a lot of the same thoughts of things. Right.

You know, we, you know, we understand that, you know, privacy is inside our houses, inside our head, and yeah, maybe even just that, but the rest of it, you know, we would just like to know. I like, I love your comment about ethics, right? Because we all, you know, recognize it when we see it.

It's like yeah. The drone's following the person, and that's just No, that's creepy. Legal.

Yeah. Maybe not for long. Yeah.

And, And we out on the word creepy, even in the AI policy setting. Like I heard government people saying, well, that's creepy. I was like, creepy is not something that you can go back to my, my lovely dorks in, in tech world that does not compute.

It's, it's hard enough. I mean, the whole reason I wrote the privacy engineers manifesto was I thought that I was clearly conveying requirements to tech teams. Turns out I was not.

I was like flying to India, drawing, we're on wave board, we're having lots of dinners together, and then six months, I'm like, where are my controls? And they would say, oh, Michelle, we just, were like presenting stuff to you. We're gonna build what we build and after it gets through qa, you're gonna write this magical policy.

And I'm like, like, you can wave your hands in front of me. I'll never be Cindy Crawford. I can't make your stuff not bad.

You have to build that stuff to be not bad. Well, let me, let me see if I can take this, this, uh, seed for, for the look out of the future part of it, right? So we're in, I've been, you know, much, much like that.

I've been trying to explain, you know, my vision of how supply chain works, right? And just yesterday, I a, a recurring call a couple folks and use the digital twin analogy. Mm-hmm.

And that might, we understand that, right? You know, I've got a turbine here, I have a model of a turbine. It's getting the same data.

It's literally the same thing. It's just digital. And I think, you know, I I think in the supply chain, we literally have to have this in 30 years, 20 years, 15, maybe 10, right?

But, you know, 10. Yeah. Where, where I can say, you know, this device, here's the, here's the supply chain for that.

Just pull it up. You know, I bought it from these people and they bought the parts from those and those and those to the point that I'm allowed to and should, you know, and if I'm on a space, you know, uh, craft, then I probably wanna see, you know, who shoveled the sand into the furnace to make the chips. I mean, maybe.

And we could do that. And, and that's all really about me, policy, interpretation and real time along the way. And if we can do that for something like supply chain, this literally involves every organization on earth.

Yep. We're intrinsically building that into business, into public discourse. Yes.

And, and think about, so like in 1952, the shipping container was produced and, and put into the field. Before that it was really the longshoremen who would decide whether they were paid off or whether they decide. But they decided like, I can strap down this bolt of cloth, but maybe not this bucket of bananas.

Or this is my favorite farmer who brought me his bananas, so I'm gonna take his and not yours. Once the shipping container happened, supply chain radically transformed because we could look at the, the four corners or eight corners of, of the box and say, here's a consistent way. We know how it stacks on a ship.

We know how it gets onto a train. We've, except for Spain, we've got all the gauges of the, of the limes ready to roll. So now we can get bananas, anytime of veer all around the globe.

That happened because someone was thoughtful and, and radically transformed supply chain. And I think that's, I'm obsessed with supply chains for that reason. Well, and, and it's, it's, uh, yeah, I'm, I'm glad you know, we got to talk to you today.

'cause I spend too much time. People could be listening. I spent a lot of wonderful time with great folks working on a lot of things.

But, you know, the policy side of things, you know, you know Paul, Paul Rosen week, uh, uh, uh, yeah, I know Run is a, it was a Friday call group of folks. I hadn't been a long time. And, and it was just he and I at the beginning of it just last Friday.

And, uh, you know, so legal, the legal isac, you know, so I went through the CISA working group that Phil Engler did, the healthcare isac and I have been running and we're developing a PA process for helping ISAC figure out how to handle software bill of materials as the distributor of the middleman and everything else getting process together. And, uh, and, and now we're talking about Privacy through AI does, it creates a bill of materials, Right. And which, yes.

So yeah, this, uh, we're trying to cross the street, right. We stop business up. Um, but, but, but with, with Paul as a, you know, old time beltway lawyer Mm-hmm.

And who understands the cyber side of things, looking at the legal isac, not just for information sharing, but it's literally information sharing, organization buying for lawyers. Yes. I might finally have a group of folks who understand the policy implications of this stuff.

Yeah. Well, and it's, and these, these people, and this is again the part of the reason I wrote the manifesto. 'cause my dad's a techie.

I was practicing law and in a very techie environment, I was like, how do I speak to them? Our, our privacy community has gotten very legally heavy. All we talk about is policy.

And I think that, that, that membrane needs to be more permeable of like, what is possible with the tools we got now, and then how do we write a policy that is allowed to, and the policy part is also has a built-in mechanism for upgrade. That's the hardest part about, we're still living on 200 year ago civil law mo mostly in the, in European theater and rest of world and common law in former common former commonwealth countries like the US and elsewhere. So when we're looking at laws, we're thinking about year long change processes here.

So policy needs to transform, we need to understand better and really listen to technical people and business people of how and what they want to do. 'cause once you get to want to do than you do should do, and then you have a business role. And once you've got a business role, you're in business, then it's get it from point to a from point A to B in a safe fashion and then figure out how to clean up the trash after.

Well I think with that statement, you've given me some additional argument I didn't have, like you're right. You know, policy, adaptive policy, you know, we are, you know, so used to the idea that policy, particularly legislative policy just has to take, you know, forever to change. But it literally can't be that way in a hundred years.

And it probably not 50 again, working backwards, you know? No, and I, I was working on some stuff when I was at Big Corp about, um, automated warranty systems because for example, a lot of the times you get, you know, friction in, in privacy versus civics and safety is, you know, I, and I live out here in California, so once you hit SFO, you, you're off to Asia and you're beyond, you know, the, the law enforcement agency. So oftentimes we would get a call and say, can we have some of your data?

We're tracking someone. Um, and I would have to wait for a paper warrant, or we would have to say, this is hot pursuit and make the judgment call. That could have put us at risk as a private entity.

But, you know, well imagine if we had a, a, a warranting system that said, here is due process. We, we have enough suspicion here to execute the warrant and let the other pieces of the judicial supply chain follow through. And then if you're wrong, you're wrong.

But you know, this guy's, you know, large padded booty is covered and this guy has a hope and justice. Well, I'm gonna take that with me as, uh, you know. Yeah.

I'm not nearly Pollyanna enough already, but, uh, Well, we have to be, if you're gonna be building for the future, we're like standing under the cliff. Someone's gotta do it. That's right.

The young people around, I'm pretty certain they're gonna grow up, you know, and so forth. They're gonna have a world that, uh, you know, my, my kids are, my, my oldest is, is pushing 30 right now. So I'm saying more often, just be clear.

This is more and more your world, but, you know, yep. While we're here, we'll keep making it a better place. Well, let me thank you for, for everything you've done.

Thank you know for spending your time here and your friendship and professionalism and just, and literally making the world a better place to be. So We try, we try. Chris, I'm so thankful for you and thankful to, uh, have a chat.

We should do this more often. We've never done it Right. Oh, there will be more and panels and so forth and everybody else in the world who spent a half an hour with us today.

Thank you very much for your time. I hope you have a good day and live well. Cheers.

Sure.