The tug-of-war over safety and free speech.

Dave Bittner: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Caveat," N2K CyberWire's privacy, surveillance, law, and policy podcast. I'm Dave Bittner, and joining me is my co-host, Ben Yelin, from the University of Maryland Center for Health and Homeland Security. Hey there, Ben.

Ben Yelin: Hello, Dave.

Dave Bittner: On today's show, Ben and I are joined once again by our N2K CyberWire colleague and editor of the "Caveat Newsletter," Ethan Cook. We are digging into online safety for children. Ethan, welcome back.

Ethan Cook: Thanks for having me back, guys. Looking forward to the conversation.

Dave Bittner: While this show covers legal topics and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice or official legal advice on any of the topics we cover. Please contact your attorney. [ Music ] All right, gentlemen, let's jump right into our topic here. And this month's policy deep dive is about online safety for children. And what an interesting topic with lots of different areas to cover here. Ethan, let me start with you. I mean, you've really done the research here. And how did you approach a topic as broad as this?

Ethan Cook: Yeah, I mean, you know, this is, I think, a hot-button issue. And it's been a growing issue over the past several years, kind of hitting a culmination last year, you know, with a very famous January Senate hearing, where we had Mark Zuckerberg, among many other CEOs, testify before Congress. And there were some very, you know, kind of big moments there. And I think it stood out for a lot of people. But, you know, I started with looking at, okay, where are we at at a federal level? What has been done, what is trying to be done, you know, and where are the holes? And, you know, the two big names that keep coming up, you know, everyone keeps talking about are both KOSA and COPPA 2.0 as the major initiatives being attempted to be passed, though, aren't through Congress yet.

Dave Bittner: Yeah, I mean, as we always say here, you know, those wheels turn slowly. For folks who aren't familiar, can you just give us a brief description of what KOSA and COPPA 2.0 entail?

Ethan Cook: Yeah, absolutely. So KOSA is the Children's-- or Kids Online Safety Act. And that is a new bill developed by bipartisan leadership within the Senate that aims to really hold social media companies more accountable by imposing a duty of care on them, by mandating that, you know, if they have harmful content that gets exposed to minors, they can be held legally liable. It empowers the FTC to go after companies that are violating this duty of care and hold them accountable for harmful content. It increases the protections and powers granted to parents and, you know, kind of a lot of other major changes with what we consider to be harmful online. And COPPA 2.0 was actually an updated version of a law from 1998 that was originally designed to protect children from back in the late '90s. And this is this new updated version. The whole thought process behind this one is let's modernize the law for modern standards. And, you know, we're not only just going to raise protections and increase those protections because the previous law only had it for 13 and under. This now raises it to 17 and under, as well as increases protections across the board for many other parents and minors, etc., on social media accounts and websites. So, you know, both of these laws are kind of working, and while they have some similarities are, you know, working in conjunction with each other, both increasing and adding new legal powers for parents, mandating security settings and default privacy settings for children, minimizing data collection efforts, etc.

Dave Bittner: Ben, I'm curious for your take on these. I mean, are these generally well-received as kind of being, you know, presented in good faith in a rational way?

Ben Yelin: I think they are perceived as being presented in good faith, but I think a bunch of different stakeholders have significant problems with both of them, which is why we have not seen KOSA or COPPA 2.0 pass the House of Representatives. As Ethan has noted, they did pass the Senate, so we've gone through part one of the process. I'd say it basically boils down to a couple of issues. From the industry's perspective, from big tech's perspective, the creation of a duty of care for internet companies, which would allow them to be held liable for recommending harmful content to children, is a non-starter for them. They think that they would be subjected to significant lawsuits, and just like the rationale behind Section 230, they think that would inhibit the modern internet from being able to flourish. If companies are constantly worried about being sued because of what's on their platforms or websites, they will engage in self-censorship. So that's one big concern. And then, along with that, allowing the FTC the power to sue big tech companies, especially if you have an FTC that is antagonistic. A, to the tech industry, and B, to what they see as unjust monopolization in any industry. And we kind of have that in both the Biden and Trump administrations; then that could also stifle innovation on the internet. That's one concern. And then there's kind of the online privacy advocates' concern, which I think we need to take seriously. While the goals of protecting children online are laudable, and I think there are many provisions in here that are common sense, and many provisions in state laws from red states like Florida and blue states like California that make sense. The concern is that if you over-regulate content for kids, you run into two problems, two free speech problems. The first is that you'll inhibit the right of adults to access certain material. So if you just set up these guardrails, it's possible that adults, for whatever reason-- maybe they don't have proper verification methods-- are going to be barred from seeing certain content. And then there's content even for minors that organizations like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU are concerned that those are going to be censored, even though who's to decide that they're not appropriate for children? So if a kid wants to do research, for example, on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there are violent images, are they going to be barred from seeing those? And will that hurt their academic pursuits in high school? I think those are extremely valid concerns. You have the concerns kind of from the right side of the political spectrum that this is going to interrupt the free flow of information, the marketplace online. And then I guess you could consider it the left side of the perspective that this is going to hurt free speech rights.

Dave Bittner: What about the moral panic element here? You know, Ben, you and I kind of, I don't know, every few months we have a story come by on the show where we kind of-- we both roll our eyes and say, "But the children."

Ben Yelin: Yeah, it's always--

Dave Bittner: I mean, that's a component of this, right?

Ben Yelin: It is. I do think like-- and as somebody who has two kids, I'm concerned about child online safety. We often use that, well, "Won't somebody think of the children?" It's Reverend Lovejoy's wife in "The Simpsons."

Dave Bittner: Right, right.

Ben Yelin: But I think there are very legitimate concerns. You know, my concerns are less about content per se and more about giving kids unfettered access before they're ready to the terrifying universe of social media platforms, which can sometimes run amok even with protective safety measures. And I think that's a laudable effort to try to either restrict people from joining these social media sites like TikTok before they're 13, 14, or requiring parental consent to go to certain sites. I mean, I understand that instinctively. So I don't think you can just call it a moral panic. Like, I do think we're grappling with what the internet and especially social media is doing to our kids. And it's a conversation worth having, even if some portion of these regulations might go too far.

Dave Bittner: Well, let's dig into some of the specifics here. I mean, Ethan, what are these-- what are these looking to control, and how are they looking to do it?

Ethan Cook: Yeah, so I think, you know, we talked about, you know, the duty of care. And to dive into that one a little bit deeper. And I think a big aspect of that is this concept of harmful-- like, what is defined as harmful. And it's very vague when they create this duty of care, which is a big concern that, you know, what the government, federal government, defines as harmful is so vaguely construed that, you know, we could classify that under many different categories, and that could be something that could be a violent crime or something along those lines. It could be related to cyberbullying. But what is defined as cyberbullying? These are things that aren't really fully defined and create some concerns there. I think, on another dynamic, there is, you know, a big element that, you know, I think to Ben's point regarding children's exposure to online content regarding targeted advertising and addictive features. You know, a lot of-- there's been numerous studies done from a scientific perspective on how children's brains interact with online places and online feeds, and specifically social media sites. And a lot of studies kind of find the same conclusion, which is that children don't have the ability, logically, to be able to turn those feeds off and to kind of resist those innate and addictive features. And I think there's an aspect that has kind of motivated parents as well as some lawmakers to kind of see social media companies as bad faith actors. They are companies that have purposely designed their platforms, not just for the adult to engage with, but to keep children in, to target to children, to keep them coming back because they know they can consistently get revenue out of them because they can't have the ability to logically turn off the social media feed, to get off Instagram Reels, to get off, you know, TikTok scrolling, etc. Another, I think, key aspect of this-- you know, of these measures that I think really shouldn't be undersold and has a pretty big dynamic is the-- you know, we mentioned it a little bit, but I think the parental rights-- that they're increasing the power of parental rights. You know, right now, a lot of kids can kind of just hop on, you know-- a lot of terms of services will just say, oh, you have to be 18 or like you should be 18, etc. But there's no way to verify that. And both of these bills are not only mandating that children have parental permission to some degree, depending on the age, but also mandating that their accounts be set to automatic default privacy settings, as well as minimizing data collection efforts, etc. And I think one of these major aspects that is, you know, drawing questions is how do we actually implement those restrictions, and how do we verify that this is an 18-year-old child or this is-- or 18-year-old adult now or a 17-year-old child? Are we going to go through identification purposes? How are we going to be able to institute these age-verification systems and make sure they work effectively, and make sure that parents are actually able to track and keep over it? Because a lot of, you know, situations right now, you have-- you know, many people have smartphones. It's not impossible for them to download an app, you know, without permission if the account's not configured properly and just kind of do whatever they want to do or visit whatever site they want to visit. You know, so I think with each of these bills, you know, because they are so comprehensive and because they're trying to target so many things is a huge reason why we have seen them stall out in the House because there are so many issues that people have with various aspects, whether that be the practical implications of mandating these age verification requirements, whether it be the very vague definitions that come in with terms from harmful content, whether it be giving the FTC seemingly way more power than they've had previously to legislate or to determine if someone's been a bad actor than ever before. And that's a small group of five that, you know, is determined by a president nominee. And that can be very easily politicized, as we've seen has been done previously and potentially over the next four years. You know, that is something that is-- you know, all these valid concerns; it's not just one concern with the bill. And it kind of has turned into this, we need to overhaul it. And because of this pause and that has nothing happened, we've seen states kind of taking that initiative instead.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. Well, I'll tell you what, let's take a quick break here. And when we come back, let's dig into some of the things that are going on at the state level. We'll be right back after this message. [ Music ] And we are back. You know, before we dig into some of the things about the states, I'm curious-- it's funny. I was on vacation last week with my family, and somehow the topic came up while talking to my two sons who are-- one is in his 20s, and one is a late teen. And it came up that, you know, when we were growing up, back in my day, you couldn't just pull up your smartphone and say, you know, "Hey, Siri, show me pictures of naked people." And they would come up, you know, like, like that's where we are today. And I'm curious, like when it comes to pornography, which I think is something that people have often-- it often goes hand in hand with we need to protect the children. Is that a solved problem? Or are we in like a state of equilibrium when it comes to how people consider that kind of content online? Or are we still trying to figure out ways to establish that when someone says they're 18 online, they really are? Ethan?

Ethan Cook: Yeah, that's a great question. You know, I think this question hasn't actually really been solved. And I think KOSA and COPPA are attempting to solve it to some degree by labeling it as harmful content. But, you know, we saw a couple of months ago, Florida had a pretty big clash with, you know, the very infamous site Pornhub. And they banned their access there because of a lack of age-verification systems. Or they didn't ban them. They were going to mandate these things. And the response was, all right, then we're going to turn off services in your entire state. And that's exactly what the website did. They have kind of-- there's kind of been this stalemate where any time a state or any time a legislator attempts to mandate that a specific system or age verification process needs to be put in place to ensure that children aren't going to these sites, the website says, okay, if that's what you're going to implement in your state, then I'm just simply not going to operate in your state. And that has been, you know, to-- you know, it's kind of a zero-sum game. You know, the state legislators technically get what they want because kids can't go to there, but they also-- you know, anyone who's a legal adult can't go either now. And you know, there was a great story that was posted how, you know, ironically, VPN services jumped in Florida by several hundred percent like a week later.

Dave Bittner: Right. Funny.

Ethan Cook: And I think, you know, I think that is the telling dynamic of, you know, going to the point that Ben brought up earlier, which is how do you ensure you're protecting children without, you know, denying a legal min-- or legal adults right to go to any of these sites or look at any of this specific content?

Dave Bittner: Right. Well, but so, Ben, let me ask you this. I mean, you know, back in again, back in the day, you know, if you wanted to go to your local newsstand and buy yourself a copy of Playboy magazine or go to your video rental store and, you know, rent yourself an adult movie, you had to show ID; you had to prove that you were 18 to be able to buy that. And I don't think people thought that was a huge burden. How is this different? What is the case that folks are making here that this would be overly burdensome on free speech and free expression and people's ability to consume these legal products?

Ben Yelin: I do think it's fundamentally different. First, I want to say like this isn't an argument about the merits of requiring age verification, to which I certainly agree with. But it is fundamentally different because how do you effectuate age verification on these websites? Well, they would require you to upload documentation. Now, it certainly depends on the state, but whether that's a copy of a driver's license or other government-issued documents. So let's say me or-- more accurately, a friend of mine, wanted to access an X-rated website. You'd have to think twice about this personally identifiable information being in the hands of Pornhub or whatever the site is.

Dave Bittner: I see.

Ben Yelin: I think there are legitimate concerns about that. Even if you are an adult who is old enough to make decisions about what they want to see. But it's a problem that doesn't have an easy solution. Because I do think the alternative, which is kind of the world that existed prior to this latest wave of regulation, is that there's a button that says, like "Please affirm that you are 18 years old."

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: And I don't think that is a foolproof system. It certainly strains credulity that every single minor is going to be honest and not click that button. So, I mean, I wish there was some good in-between ground. And I'm not sure if, as a society, we've figured out that equilibrium. And I'm curious, Ethan, if you have any ideas about like what's the middle ground between giving Pornhub my driver's license or social security or passport versus press a button affirming that you're 18 and you're in?

Ethan Cook: Yeah, you know, this is, you know, as I was researching and diving into this, there weren't really any, again, like to your point, any really great answers to solve this problem at the moment. You know, I think one thing that I saw that was really interesting, and I'm not sure how Apple managed to do it, but Apple just released or announced that they're releasing new age verification software that would allow parents to, you know, create an account; it would be a children's account, and they would set the age range. They would set the age range for their child. And it would be anywhere from, you know, I think, you know, 12 to 7-- you know, 12 to 14, 14 to 17, etc. And you would not need to specify any birth date for that minor. And that would then determine what apps they could go and download and services they can engage with. And, you know, I thought that was a somewhat clever idea that could determine how to regulate a minor's online space. Because, you know, I think, to your point, you know, we already have a problem with how much data we give away already, you know, and how much-- you know, how many companies can access our data. And now we want to implement age verification software. And that requires not just, you know, affirming, hey, that I, you know, I'm over the age of 18, etc., or I'm under the age of 18, etc., but now I have to send proof of that. And, you know, do I trust-- I already don't trust the companies that have my data. Do I trust even more companies that have my data who have never been experienced with holding my data, you know? And I think that this new Apple tech, you know, and the way that they're approaching it, rather than saying, okay, you are born whatever day, whatever day in this year you are-- hey, you were born around this time period and you're 13 to 17 years old, so we know we can't give you explicit access to these accounts unless a parent says otherwise when configuring your account. And I don't know if there would be a way for Apple, within its internal system, to be able to control just the applications downloaded or the content seen on those applications past that. I know that they are working with app stores from the story, but they haven't released the tech yet. So I'm curious to see how that system works. And it may be a kind of middle ground to these two sides.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, I mean, the one thing about that, and I think that's promising, is you have to have parents who are responsible enough to implement those controls, which I'd like to think I'm one of those parents, but not everybody could be as responsible as we are.

Ethan Cook: Yeah, I also think, you know, with parents, there's this huge dynamic where it's really hard to keep up with changing tech and how rapidly changes and what the newest fad is, what the newest app is, and how to make sure that you can properly keep up while still being, you know, a normal parent and working a nine-to-five or whatever the job may be.

Dave Bittner: One of the things my wife and I sort of came to grips with as our kids were coming up and, you know, through their adolescence and teen years was that while it is possible and plausible that between the two of us, my wife and I could outsmart our children in terms of putting restrictions on what they see online and all that sort of thing, it is highly unlikely that we would be able to outsmart our children and all of their friends, right? So we just-- we sort of felt like we had to come at it from a kind of different point of view. In other words, like technological solutions to this probably weren't going to be effective because there's always that one kid who figures out, you know, how to use a VPN and shares it with all their friends, and now everything you've tried to do as a parent, they're just working their way around. And I think that's kind of the reality in the world that we live in. So from our point of view, we came at it from a different point of view of just trying to be, you know, highly communicative, and, you know, this is what we-- these are our expectations. And, you know, we understand you're going to be curious about things and this, that, and the other thing, but here's what we want and here's why. And then just trying to manage it. You know, perhaps that's Pollyanna or unrealistic, but that was the way we came at it. And I, you know, Ben, you're on the precipice of this, right? I mean, your, your kids are-- it happens fast.

Ben Yelin: It does happen fast. And I even think something that we haven't really talked about that much is the role of the algorithms. My daughter, who's eight and a half now, started as a young kid. We'd be exhausted, and we'd put her in front of an iPad. And eventually that got her to YouTube Kids. And it was like content for toddlers, basically, at the time. There have been maybe a few instances since then where we've like directed her to certain videos that we think she might like. Otherwise, it's all been algorithm-driven to the point where like the algorithm in some ways has determined what she's interested in, in a way that I think might be unhealthy. And my wife and I have talked about ways that we can try and restrict this, although, you get to 9 p.m. on a weekend, and you're exhausted, and you've tried to entertain your kids all day, and you want to plop them in front of an iPad. But like now she's eight, and without basically any involvement from us, she's getting like MrBeast videos, which are-- they're not-- it's not adult content. I mean, it's entertaining. There might be some adult themes, but it's like, there's-- she's on a path without having made really any conscious decisions except clicking videos that teach YouTube what she's interested in. And once that train has left the station, and I think for us it happened very early, it worries me that we're going to lose control of where the algorithm takes our kids. So that's another aspect of it that I think is really interesting. And I'm not sure that that's something that either KOSA or COPPA 2.0 really addresses.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. Ethan, let's talk about the states themselves. I mean, we find ourselves here in the US with a, I think it's generous to say, dysfunctional Congress. It's hard to get anything passed. So the states have taken it upon themselves to try to make a difference here. Where do we stand in terms of what the states are trying to do?

Ethan Cook: Yeah, so Ben alluded to it. Both, you know, left and-- or I should say red and blue states are attempting to address this problem. This is not a one-sided debate. This is not a one-sided issue, you know, with some of the most extreme red states, that being Florida, and some of the most extreme blue states, or let's say classic blue states, being California, both attempting to really, you know, look at this matter and address it. You know, with Cali-- you know, and each one has attempted to address it in different ways. And kind of, instead of doing something as comprehensive as KOSA and COPPA, they are more so looking at very specific issues and saying, how do we stop this specific issue rather than trying to pass one comprehensive bill all at once, which, you know, may have greater efficiency, may be less effective in the overall picture, but I do think it is kind of establishing this legal framework that will guide KOSA and COPPA as the, you know, revisions are attempted to be made on what legal challenges have been made against ongoing state laws and existing state laws, and which of those legal challenges have been successful or have failed. With some of the major ones, I think, going by recency, we just had Utah actually last week pass a new child safety law. They were aiming to fix-- or address the same thing that Apple was doing, which is kind of holding the App Store more accountable. You know, obviously, Apple and Google, etc., do control what is put on their application stores, but there is not a lot of control on who can download what and what can be, you know, seen by various age groups, etc. And, you know, Utah wanted to basically address this same problem, going in and signing a bill that would ensure that users' ages needed to be verified before certain applications could be downloaded, as well as parental consent needed to be given for certain applications. So very reminiscent of the changes that Apple just instituted within their own-- or are going to institute within their own iOS ecosystem. But this would also extend that to both the, obviously, Google Play Store, as well as any external third-party applications vendor places that you may visit. So that is probably the most recent and new effort. And I would also say unique. I haven't really seen anything on a state level attempting-- that has been passed that has attempted to really address this in this way. And then flipping that over, the probably most influential and I guess infamous law was Florida's minor banning law. And this was probably the most restrictive law that I have seen going through this process. With Florida, they rather than taking a, hey, let's, you know, include some caveats or, you know, maybe try and find some middle grounds, their simple solution was to just ban everyone under 14 from using any social media accounts. Did it matter if the parental figure was involved or a guardian was involved? It was simple as if you were under 14, you were not allowed to use these sites. They also then extended that if you were under 16, you can use these sites, but you need explicit parental consent, and also mandating that age verifications systems be put in place. But this ban was-- you know, I think the messaging around it that came out was very much along the lines of what we talked about earlier, which is parents can't keep up with the ever-changing nature of this dynamic. So we are going to do it for them by making sure that everyone who has kids under 14 don't have to worry. They can't go to these sites anyways. It doesn't matter if you don't know what the newest social media application is. They've been banned from this. How enforcement is going to work with this law is kind of a different question and hasn't really been fully evaluated. The law was just passed this last year. So we haven't really seen the ramifications of what that will look like yet and how social media platforms are aiming to work within Florida or if they're aiming to take Pornhub's approach, which is fine. We will just turn off all services within your state and just choose to avoid you. And that is our solution. And then flipping that over, you know, to the blue efforts, in California, they passed a similar bill, but certainly not nearly as aggressive, but also aimed to keep children off of social media applications. And that was an act that aimed to kind of reduce the addiction aspects that we talked about earlier. So not only does it mandate, you know, similar restrictions on children and having parental consent, but it also mandated that, I think, one of the most unique aspects, which is notifications can't be sent to a minor between certain times of the day. So, for example, at night or during school hours, they cannot receive notifications. They are banned, if their account is sent to a minor account, from receiving any social media notifications. And that was a really creative way that I saw from disrupting the feed because notifications are, according to research, one of the most impactful ways to get someone to come back to your app and to get someone back and hooked into the feed and kind of going through the scrolling efforts again. And on top of that, they also-- the law also banned these applications from banning-- banned them from using targeted advertising feeds, as well as requiring parental consent to use other addictive features that were innately found within many of these social media sites. And while there have been many other state laws and state efforts that have been passed, and I'm sure there will be many more over the coming months, I think these three kind of represent the big three in my mind of what has been done from the most restrictive standpoint, what has been done in terms of targeting the various features and concerns that people have, and how, when we update, because it inevitably will be updated at the federal level, whether that be KOSA or COPPA-- or KOSA 2.0, or something new, whatever we update one of these things, what can we pull from these state efforts? And what are these logical changes that we can make that may both increase the effectiveness of these bills, as well as allay some of the concerns that people genuinely have?

Dave Bittner: Well, before we wrap up here, where do we stand with President Trump? We're a couple months into his term, but these efforts have been churning for quite a long time now. Does President Trump coming into office, does this change the outlook for these bills? Is he supportive, or where do we stand there?

Ethan Cook: Ben, do you want to take this one or do you want me to take it?

Ben Yelin: I mean, I'm happy to take it from the perspective that I see, which is that I don't think he really has his head in this space. I don't think it's a major priority of his. But I'm curious what your take is, Ethan.

Ethan Cook: Yeah, I think for the Trump-- President Trump himself, this is not a priority. I think there are obviously way bigger issues for him at the moment that are kind of dominating the news cycle that are demanding a lot of attention from him. Though I think from the Republican standpoint, I do think that this is a major issue. You know, this law passed the Senate-- these laws passed the Senate overwhelmingly in a 91-to-three vote. This wasn't something that was a small initiative, nor was it something that didn't have broad bipartisan support. And, you know, Speaker Johnson talked about it last year and did emphasize that if these laws were not passed, which they weren't, in 2024, that they would be a priority in 2025 for the Republican Party. At the time, he predicted, and was correct in that prediction, that they would get the majority to overhaul the laws as they saw fit and then repass them. And of course, that would mean they have to go back to the Senate and get repassed again. But I do think that this is something that Republican lawmakers are paying attention to and is a hot-button issue. Whether it will continue to be a hot-button issue throughout 2025 is unclear, as we haven't seen the same traction for these bills as we did last year. But I don't think traction has fully, you know, fallen apart. I think that with obviously changing administrations, a lot of news happens, a lot of changes happen with, you know, changes of departments, changes with the DOGE going on right now, etc. And it's not necessarily watered down the conversation around KOSA or COPPA, but it has pulled away from. And once those things resolve themselves or, you know, become-- go out of the news cycle, I do think this conversation will likely be revisited.

Dave Bittner: All right. Well, we will leave it there for today. Ethan Cook, thank you so much for joining us. Ethan is our colleague here at N2K CyberWire and the editor of the "Caveat Newsletter." Thanks so much for taking the time for us.

Ethan Cook: Yeah, absolutely. Thank you for having me.

Dave Bittner: That is "Caveat," brought to you by N2K CyberWire. We would love to know what you think of this podcast. Your feedback ensures we deliver the insights that keep you a step ahead in the rapidly changing world of cybersecurity. If you like our show, please share a rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Please also fill out the survey in the show notes or send an email to caveat@n2k.com. This episode is produced by Liz Stokes. Our executive producer is Jennifer Eiben. The show is mixed by Tré Hester. Peter Kilpe is our publisher. I'm Dave Bittner.

Ben Yelin: And I'm Ben Yelin.

Dave Bittner: Thanks for listening.