Round three: The fight over AI preemption.
Ben Yelin: Hello, and welcome to "Caveat", N2K CyberWire's privacy, surveillance, law, and policy podcast. Dave Bittner is out today. I'm Ben Yelin from the University of Maryland Center for Cyber Health and Hazard Strategies, and I'm pleased to be joined by my N2K CyberWire colleague, Ethan Cook. Hello, Ethan.
Ethan Cook: Hey, Ben. How are you doing?
Ben Yelin: Doing well. On today's show, I have the story of the administration's new AI policy vision. Ethan has the story of the United States banning foreign routers. While this show covers legal topics, and I am a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney. [ Music ] Well, Ethan, it's the two of us again. Dave Bittner is off doing, I'm sure, some very important things, slash wading around in a pool somewhere. No, he's at a very important conference.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, someone may have heard of it. It's called RSA. It's a small thing going on right here.
Ben Yelin: Small other little boutique San Francisco gathering.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, something like that. So while Dave is out there, I think the two of us have a couple of fun stories to go through. And the first I will start with is the administration's new AI policy guidelines. Yeah.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, so I'll start by saying, like, I don't really know what this is supposed to be. And what I mean by that is it's a policy vision that reflects previous executive orders, and it's something that could be turned into legislation. But as it is, this is a document that got a lot of attention, but it was like three pages double-spaced. And it's really a statement of principles rather than something that will make up a detailed proposal. But nevertheless, some Republican members of Congress have expressed support for this framework and want to turn it into legislation. So I figured I'd go over the basics, and then we can share our takes on it.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, let's go into it.
Ben Yelin: So the big thing here is preemption. We've talked about this a lot in the past. But basically, the industry and the administration don't want big companies to have to comply with 50 separate state statutes. And the way they are trying to subvert that is through this idea of federal preemption. That Congress should pass a law saying that state laws on the subject of artificial intelligence are explicitly preempted. Therefore, federal law under the Supremacy Clause would reign supreme. A couple of issues with that. One, it's sort of unclear the full scope of state legislation that would be preempted. So there are a couple little carve-outs here. They say that the federal government should not preempt generally applicable state laws dealing with children's safety. So like prohibitions on CSAM. That's not really AI-specific. I guess if the prohibition included an AI element, then the federal government would not preempt that statute. And then other little things, like states are free to come up with their own AI use policies in state government agencies, for example. But for everything else, the federal government's vision is that states are going to be handcuffed and that if we're going to regulate this industry, there should be one uniform standard at the federal level. And our primary goal should be innovation and winning the race against our adversaries. And what that means is that states, which are going crazy experimenting with AI regulations, and it's red states, blue states, really all over the country, they are going, if this vision is to be carried out, they're going to be heavily restricted. So I'll start there and see what your take is, and we can take it from there.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, I think that's a pretty good summary. So this one just came out. I had a lot of thoughts. Some parts did surprise me. I think some people were, oh, it's exactly what they thought it would be. I would agree for the most part. I think there are some interesting nuances that come into here. I think that, to start with the things that are not surprising, like you said, preemption. I think we also, most of this one coming a mile away after they tried to do their weird executive order in December, saying that we're going to preempt through an executive order kind of vibe.
Ben Yelin: Which, not a thing.
Ethan Cook: Not a thing, but, you know, surprise, surprise, an administration that has tried preemption for the better part of over six months is trying to get preemption to go through again. This time, though, they pretty much have thrown it in Congress's hands, saying that we want Congress to do preemption. So I think the government, the federal executive branch has finally said, okay, maybe legally we can't do it through the White House. I don't, though, if Congress is really going to pick that up. I believe there was a senator, a Republican senator, who came out and said that -- it was John Thune, if I remember correctly.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, majority leader of the Senate, yeah.
Ethan Cook: Big one, and said that, you know, it's something that they're really struggling to figure out how to do without, you know, outright trampling state rights. So I think that that one's going to be -- if I had to put money down, I think that's going to be a very, very long way from that to happen. It's going to be, I think, hard to build a consensus around preemption, especially without a federal framework. And while Trump does say he wants a framework, I notice a lot of what he's saying in terms of the preemption argument for the vast part of AI is more so let's not regulate these things rather than let's actually put regulations in that create a national standard, if that makes sense.
Ben Yelin: Right, it's more defined by what he's saying the federal government should not do than what the federal government should do.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, and so it's not really a standard. It's not like, oh, we're mandating the drinking age across the entire country be 21, right? It's we're saying, well, we should just have no drinking age. And it's like, well, that's not really preemption anymore, is it? That's just, let's remove barriers.
Ben Yelin: Right, and where they do try to move in and elucidate some type of policy priority, it's extremely vague. So just as an example, Congress should consider establishing a federal framework protecting individuals from the unauthorized distribution or commercial use of AI-generated digital replicas of their voice, likeness, or other identifiable attributes while providing clear exceptions for parody, satire, news reporting, and other expressive works protected by the First Amendment. I think there's a lot of question in that community whether that is referring to something like a congressional proposal called the No Fakes Act, which would be a really strong restriction on unauthorized distribution, or if that's just like a general principle and they're not completely sold on the federal government defining that standard about what counts as unauthorized distribution. Same thing with rate payers and data centers. So they've come out, you know, it's a politically popular thing to do, and have said, we don't want consumers to experience higher electricity costs because of these giant data centers. And that's great. But there's no further detail there. I mean, there's no, like, here are the regulations we are going to promulgate to make sure that that happens. There's no recommendation for states to institute any policy. And really, there's no guidance for Congress on how to prevent rate payers from these increased costs. So it's just a little bit lacking on the details.
Ethan Cook: Well, yeah, I think a lot of this was a lot of grandstanding, a lot of we should do this. How we do that is irrelevant. We just should do it. And I think it's a great PR win, you know, to come out and say, oh, I think we should protect the kids. I don't think anyone's sitting here saying that we shouldn't. But when you look at some of the terminology and some of the ways that this is expressed, as with many of the other, I guess, subsections, I think there were seven in total. You know, it says, you know, all right, like looking at one of the points, it should require all AI platforms and services likely to be accessed by miners to implement features that reduce risk. Right? Well, how are we reducing risk? What are the measures? And then to me, that's something that screams, okay, well, if you're leaving that in Congress's hand right now, you can take the same thing and apply that to a dozen other principles here. And it's so vague that to pass one of these laws is going to take forever. And it feels like we're never going to get there because every single one of these points are, well, we shouldn't let people be hurt by these things. Okay, I agree with you. But how? What? Specifics? There's not really anything tangible to grab onto.
Ben Yelin: In the areas where they are more tangible, it's ways that, at least to my eye, are trying to restrict states from regulating the abuses of AI. So one thing they say is that Congress should avoid setting ambiguous standards about permissible content or open-ended liability that could give rise to excessive litigation. My read of that is they don't want the developers to be liable for malicious content that comes from their platforms, that they want to extend Section 230 protection to AI developers.
Ethan Cook: That's what I read it as too.
Ben Yelin: Right. And I didn't really expect any different. I think when you support innovation and you want the industry to be thriving, you don't want the big players to be constantly concerned about litigation. But, you know, that really does limit options for consumers. And it also contradicts what states are trying to do. I mean, states are setting up causes of action for things like malicious chatbots who are giving kids suicidal ideation advice. So I think that's another thing that's really going to hamstring states.
Ethan Cook: Well, I think, you know, you get to this point where some of these aspects are contradictory to each other, right? Like you have a whole section about protecting kids, right? But then you have another section where you can't sue the people who are making chatbots that are destructive to kids. So you know, okay, sure, we can protect and we can do all these things. And that's what states have taken the proactive stance of doing by regulating chatbots, for example. But on the same vein, by preempting them and saying that we're not going to, you know, expand Section 230 effectively, how are we supposed to protect them then, if that makes sense, right? Like, what are we building in as the protection methods? Or is this just, again, another grandstanding point saying, well, of course we're protecting them, we're protecting them, but we're not actually putting real bite behind the protection.
Ben Yelin: Right, exactly. And there are ways that the administration would also potentially hamstring itself. One thing I noticed that was kind of hidden towards the end of this very short document, Congress should not create any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI and instead should support --
Ethan Cook: Yeah, that was interesting to me.
Ben Yelin: Right. Development and deployment of sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies. That might seem like sort of an unimportant throwaway and something that's just relating to federal government bureaucracy. But to me, that means, at least the indication is we're not going to have a robust regulatory bill for artificial intelligence. Because if we were, that would put a big new burden on the administration because there would probably be a lot of rules they'd have to promulgate to comply with the legislation. And if we're only using existing agencies, that to me is just an indication that we're not going to pursue that robust regulation.
Ethan Cook: Yeah.
Ben Yelin: I don't know if you read it the same way.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, I think another thing that I read is by not creating an agency, which is something that I think is bipartisan. There is support on both sides of the aisle for creating a new agency or a new, like similar to a Homeland of sorts, right? Where maybe it's under a department, but a new agency of sorts that's tasked with managing and controlling AI, at least within the federal government space. Because right now you have a bunch of agencies and departments doing their own individual things. And that has created a lot of confusion and a lot of, you know, almost two people working on the same project and then, you know, reaching the end point and going, wow, we should have just done this together, it would have been faster. And it's just wasting time and dollars where -- you know, and I look back to a lot of the major tech advances we've had, right? You know, we have, the FCC came out, right, you know, and with communications and regulated that to a substantial degree in the late '90s and early 2000s. And I think at the time there was a lot of pushback, like, oh, do we need another one of these? And I think for the long run, people have walked back and said, yeah, that was probably a good thing for us to do. I think a lot of people have looked back at those new agencies and have said that for the most part, especially with technological advances, that these things, while they may have created more government bureaucracy in the long term as well, have done more good than harm. They've helped us solve problems and centralize a major technological advancement under one roof. And I think the same can be said about AI. Right now, there's a lot of change happening very, very quickly, and you have a lot of departments all acting individually to follow various executive orders or just institute their own policies. And I think that that's not only creating a lot of undue risk because you have people who probably aren't experts in the field touching very sensitive systems and giving them access to very sensitive data. And then on top of that, people who are probably doing the same thing at the same time, making an AI system that could be utilized by another agency. And rather than making two systems that do the exact same thing, why not just make one central one, house it under one roof, and not have to waste time and money doing the same thing twice?
Ben Yelin: What it all says to me, and I think you'd agree with this, is that they don't take the threats of AI as seriously as the industry titans do.
Ethan Cook: Absolutely not.
Ben Yelin: That's what's so funny to me about this. It's like, there's no other industry out there where the major players are saying, like, you need to regulate us because left unchecked, this is going to destroy the world. I mean, they say that in so many words. Like, there's a lot of -- and it's not just one or two executives. I mean, it's all of these companies.
Ethan Cook: Now they have the Anthropic dispute.
Ben Yelin: Exactly, exactly. And that's the most notable example. But really, all of the heads of these companies have expressed very serious concerns that AI could have deleterious effects and that governments need to set up guardrails. Now, they have their own angles, and they want to be regulated the right way, and, of course, I don't want to say more interested in their bottom line, but they're very concerned about their bottom line. And lawmakers in both parties, I think, share those concerns. One of the strongest existing proposals in Congress for regulating AI is from conservative Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn. Nobody's idea of a regulation-loving liberal. But I think for whatever reason, the administration has decided on this innovation first, let's kind of minimize the barriers to innovation in any way we can. This is a matter of interstate commerce. So this is an area where we can preempt state laws. And it's interesting to me that they took that perspective. And it's one of those things where that's not something that was inevitable. I don't think Trump himself ideologically had much of a view on AI before he came back into office. And you could see him in the way that he's wanted to regulate other things, like immigration, coming in and saying, this is really dangerous, you know, they impersonated me in the presidential election with a deepfake, we have to regulate it. Like, this was not something that, at least to my mind, was inevitable when he came back into office. And it's just interesting that that's the track they're taking here.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, I think it's -- I struggle to where I want to regulate and not regulate AI, right? Because, you know, you look at the economic reports and you go, oof, it's not great to see that pretty much every sector shrank instead of AI, right? Like, obviously, shrinking AI doesn't feel great when the economy is already struggling. And now you're like, all right, let's kneecap the one thing that's growing.
Ben Yelin: I mean, it's propping up this economy. You're absolutely right.
Ethan Cook: Right, and so I think there is a huge and very, very reasonable argument to say that AI is something that we can't overly kneecap, at least at this moment with our economy, right? Fair, I agree. And then I think there's the other side of it where you get into that ethical argument of like, okay, but what are the costs that we have to pay for not kneecapping that are not just strictly monetary? How does it impact minors? How does it impact privacy? Does it impact businesses? How many people lose their job because people think that AI can replace them and then, you know, they're out, you know, it's a short-term gain and we're kicking the can down the road for this economic loss, right? What are the impacts of these things? And I don't think that's something that people have fully realized yet slash can really actually, even if they have realized, oh, there's going to be long-term costs, really can predict effectively. I mean, you have people in the AI field saying, we don't know where this is going to be in three years.
Ben Yelin: Right, right.
Ethan Cook: And so, and these are the people who are looking at these systems day in, day out. And so, I think that's a huge question mark. And I think that's what scares me a little bit about this whole preemption. I'm generally in favor for a bigger federal government. I think state rights are 100% important and should be utilized. But I do agree that centralization sometimes can be significantly better, especially when you have 50 state laws all doing relatively the same thing. And having just, okay, let's codify it under one rule. But at the same line of thought, okay, ignoring the fact that this one version does not want to have any centralization, it just wants to remove everything. You get to the other standpoint of it, which is, okay, if we centralize and bring this all in, if it's wrong or if we over- or under-regulate it from a standpoint within centralization, the effects of that will be felt way harder now. And I think that's something that I don't think we figured out.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, there really is something to that. And I agree with you. Like, I think preemption does make sense in theory because it would be way better to have one federal standard. The problem for me is that we would be doing this in the absence of any federal action. And this might sound extremely cheesy and like a stupid cop-out, but what about a bipartisan blue ribbon commission that comes together and tries to formulate federal AI policy? Like, I do think there's enough ideological diversity among both proponents and opponents of unchecked AI that we really could get an interesting panel together and maybe could come up with a bicameral bipartisan solution. I don't think that's too much of a fever dream.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, I would agree. Now, one last thing that I think is worth noting, I'm not sure if you caught this one, but it was regarding IP rights in this plan where they explicitly mentioned that the administration does not believe that training AI models on copyrighted material violates the law. But then they add a little thing there saying that, well, we also recognize that there's a lot of differing viewpoints on this. So what we think is that the courts should fully resolve this and that Congress should keep their hands out of it. So I think that one was a really interesting one to me because we sit there and we go, okay, this administration, which has always wanted its hands in every aspect of AI policy to control and realistically remove regulation, has now said, okay, well, with this specific thing, which will cost organizations millions of dollars, hundreds of millions of dollars, like, yeah, we're not going to touch that one. That's not that's not our problem. Instead, the courts can figure that one out. Has there ever been an instance in the five plus years that Trump has been president that he has said something to the effect of, we should we should let the courts figure this out? Yeah.
Ben Yelin: It's very out of character from my perspective.
Ethan Cook: That one was a weird one. And not that I necessarily disagree. I don't think Congress should do it because I don't think Congress is capable of doing pretty much anything.
Ben Yelin: That is correct.
Ethan Cook: But that has nothing to do with it. That has nothing to do with this. I just think that they're never going to solve anything. So why entrust them to solve the problem when they haven't solved the problem, you know, a decade plus? But regarding outside of that, just personal gripe with Congress, I look at the court system and I go, okay, if that's how we're going to determine this, which we've already started. And maybe that's why the administration has already kind of put it forward, which is there's already been some settlements regarding this matter. Then I go, okay, I'm cool with that. The courts determine this. And then eventually, well, it may take some time, but people will get their compensation. Probably not as much as they deserve. But, you know, well, since when is it ever about getting what you deserve?
Ben Yelin: Right.
Ethan Cook: And we kind of leave this and we just accept that, okay, that this is a necessary sacrifice, right? To ensure that we can train AI, creators are going to have to figure out some way to collectively negotiate. And if not, and if they're abused, then they can sue for substantial damages. And I think that I don't really know if there is a better solution than that. I think in an ideal world that obviously would not happen. But obviously, we don't live in that.
Ben Yelin: All right, let's take a quick break to hear from our sponsors and we will be right back. [ Music ] All right, Ethan. You've got a story for us. Would you be willing to share?
Ethan Cook: Yeah, so this just came out earlier this week, and this has kind of been something I've been seeing. I didn't predict it would be this big, but I predicted that something like this was going to happen, which is the FCC coming out and banning new foreign-made routers citing various security concerns. This has been something that has been a big point, especially with a company called TP-Link Systems, which has been getting a lot of attention. But they're now kind of extending this because they're concerned that these Chinese-made electronic equipment has substantial security concerns and that they'll be able to access people's smart devices, phones, computers, et cetera, and obtain sensitive information. It's a pretty big one. And it's been the general consensus that I've been seeing and the pushback has been, well, this is kind of insane because, you know, over half of our routers all come from foreign countries. So where are we replacing those?
Ben Yelin: Yeah, I mean, logistically, this feels like it's going to be a nightmare. Now, it will not apply to existing routers, but because such a large share of routers comes from overseas, even acknowledging the very real cybersecurity risks here, which I think are pretty well documented, the White House got together a review group to go over this issue and make recommendations to the FCC. And they said that these routers pose a, quote, severe cybersecurity risk that could be leveraged to immediately and severely disrupt U.S. critical infrastructure. Even recognizing all that, I feel like this could have major downstream impacts on a pretty important market.
Ethan Cook: The alternative, and like you said, this is for new routers, not existing ones that have already been approved. I walk into two kind of concern points. The first will be, okay, if that's the logic route that we're taking, if we're going to ban all these things, okay, how are we supplementing them in the U.S. economy, like the U.S. market? Are we proposing we buy from a different country? Because I don't think off the top of my head there's any country that can fill that large order. And most importantly, fill that order with the technological sophistication that is required to actually keep up with the modern era. And then the second statement is, okay, if we can't get it from another country, are we going to bring it in-house? But then we run into the same problem that we've been having all year with, you know, bringing domestic manufacturing back.
Ben Yelin: Right.
Ethan Cook: The U.S. doesn't have the infrastructure to build these things. And by the time we do, it's going to be four or five years from now. And the effects of that is just not practical.
Ben Yelin: Netgear. [ Laughter ] Is this the best day in the last 20 years for Netgear? Because their shares rose significantly after this announcement, I believe. Are they one of the few domestic manufacturers of wireless routers?
Ethan Cook: Yes. Netgear is one of them. And I think there is -- I don't know what their percentage of the market is. But I know Netgear is a top one. And I believe Amazon makes some as well. Though I don't know if -- I'm sure Elon Musk has his hand in something here with one of these. Probably Starlink has some sort of router system that is, you know --
Ben Yelin: Yeah, we're going to find that out in a couple of weeks.
Ethan Cook: Cisco is another big one, obviously. There are ones domestically that are certainly big market players. But if the logic is that they're suddenly going to then take up the remaining 50, 60% of router market share, and it's going to be an entirely U.S. dominated one, you get concerns, I think, regarding single points of failure. Okay, if, you know, let's say Cisco is at 70% of the market share, is that a point of failure, right? Is that a concern that we have? Or if, on the flip side, do we just create another kind of oligopoly, right, where, like, three router companies control the entirety of routers in the U.S and there's no competition, and we start lacking in improvement there. So you know, I think there are some credence to say that there are concerns related to Chinese infiltrating the U.S. via kind of important tech that's not necessarily critical tech in the sense of, like, oh, this is the machine operating itself, but, like, these functionary pieces of equipment that are required to exist. But I don't think that this is really a well-thought-out ban, if that makes sense.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, I mean, the other thing is we had Volt Typhoon, where there was an attack on U.S.-manufactured routers. So not to minimize this at all, and you probably know more about this than I do, but isn't there risk inherent to domestic routers?
Ethan Cook: Yeah, absolutely. And I think to say that, like, oh, that this suddenly solves our router problem from a security standpoint is kind of crazy. Obviously not. There's always going to be a vulnerability. The thing that I think I keep coming back to is, so a couple months ago, throughout 2025, a company called TP-Link Systems, which is a California-based router maker, it was originally spun off from a Chinese firm, was sued by the Texas Attorney General, saying that this company is marketing its devices as, you know, these secure routers, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But they're realistically, deceptively allowing Beijing to access American consumer data, that they're, you know, they're just a proxy for the Chinese, for the CCP, et cetera, right? And now TP-Link Systems came out and adamantly deny that this true, that the CCP has no ability to control their company, has no form of ownership or its products or user data. And this is something that is still actively being litigated in the courts. And that was at a state level. I think banning something at the federal, banning a lot of these at the federal level, seems like a gross kind of overreaction. My thought process is let this court case play itself out. The evidence will be there. If the evidence comes out that the Texas State Attorney General has been able to figure out and discover that there is credible evidence that they are connected to the CCP and that they have been selling information or are just giving information away from American consumers, then yes, obviously punish the direct company itself. But then let's open a broader investigation or get more information. But to kind of launch this, while that court case is coming on, and without any real credible evidence that I've been able to see, seems like this, okay, let's knee-jerk reaction, let's shut down this lane, and let's kick the CCP out as it like this, you know, prevent them from getting through to it. And I just don't buy that.
Ben Yelin: Also, we've seen this in other sectors. I mean, in December, there was a similar announcement on drones. And maybe this is a distinction without a difference, but this feels to me like a much more essential consumer product. Like drones have their uses, particularly in the commercial and law enforcement contexts. And I'm sure there is a robust consumer market for the use of drones. But, like, routers, everybody has a router. Like, every college kid in their studio apartment.
Ethan Cook: In their first apartment gets a router.
Ben Yelin: Exactly. So this could be one of those things where, are we going to see shortages and price spikes and supply chain issues? And is this going to be something that becomes a political issue for the administration that the FCC has to walk back this decision? Because of how ubiquitous these things are, I mean, I can't see how that doesn't happen.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, when I look at this, obviously lawsuits are going to follow this from every company that has been banned because, of course, they are. I also think there's another train of thought that is important to say that even these companies that produce routers that are domestic companies, Netgear, for example, Cisco, a lot of them don't manufacture purely within the U.S. They may have a factory or two in the U.S., but some of them all ship their factory development, right? So they may manufacture parts in Taiwan or China, right? Or they may get parts from Taiwan or China. It's not like this is a closed-loop circuit here. And it's like, okay, we're banning all foreign-made routers and we're only going to have domestic ones. And then none of these domestic ones import or ship any parts from another country, right? I think that's a crazy statement.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, it's just not how it works. I mean, maybe that's how it would have worked if we had routers 60 years ago, 70 years ago. But like, we just don't have -- right now, we don't have the manufacturing capability. Now, it would be great if we built up that capability. And there have been legislative efforts, you know, for something like the CHIPS Act to recognize the national security concerns and try to quickly stand up domestic manufacturing. I think that's a separate effort that we can take on long-term. But in the short term, we are very reliant on these overseas supply chains.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, and I think that when we get these overseas supply chains, right, I think there is a -- and maybe this is just me just not understanding the view of this more isolationist viewpoint, or I guess maybe it's like supporting a American manufacturing viewpoint, that I don't see how banning foreign-made products, universally speaking, not individually speaking, is really a solution. One, it obviously, like what we've alluded to in terms of the just lack of ability within domestic manufacturing, but also on top of that, from just a technological advancement perspective. If we have to make all these parts internally, that -- well, sure, maybe we have that industry, pulls effort and support away from other industries. And that being able to offshore some of those things to another nation -- and again, maybe China's not the answer, but Taiwan, for example, who can manufacture, Taiwan was one of the leading ship manufacturers for a very, very long time. Sure, that does make us reliant on another nation, but that doesn't mean we have to be solely reliant on them. We can be 50-50, for example, kind of like how we are with routers right now, and be able to import product and allow these other companies to not have to spend so much time, effort, and money on creating this internal closed-loop system that it just pulls away from other innovation possibilities.
Ben Yelin: Well, I guess, Ethan, you are just not America first. [ Laughter ] [ Music ] Ethan, it's been a pleasure, as always. Always fun to do these episodes with you.
Ethan Cook: Yeah.
Ben Yelin: And we'll see you perhaps as soon as next week, preview of coming attractions.
Ethan Cook: Yeah, I believe I will be on next week.
Ben Yelin: Fantastic. That is "Caveat", brought to you by N2K CyberWire. We'd 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 the 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@m2k.com. This episode is produced by Liz Stokes. Our executive producer is Jennifer Eiben. The show is mixed by Trey Hester. Peter Kilpe is our publisher. I'm Ben Yelin.
Ethan Cook: And I'm Ethan Cook.
Ben Yelin: Thanks for listening.
