The future of transatlantic data sharing.
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 Cyber Health and Hazard Strategies. Hey there, Ben.
Ben Yelin: Hello, Dave.
Dave Bittner: On today's show, Ben discusses the implications of a major Supreme Court case on data sharing with the European Union. I've got an update on law enforcement's use of Flock cameras. While this show covers legal topics and Ben is 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 ] Alright, Ben, let's jump in here. What do you got for us this week?
Ben Yelin: Well, I hate to say we're going to talk about the European Union two weeks in a row, because we do love our country. We secured our independence, but this is just too important of a story to pass up.
Dave Bittner: Okay.
Ben Yelin: So it comes from our friends at Law Fair. Title of the article is Supreme Court Undermines Section 702. I actually think there are broader implications than that in this story. So it comes from a Supreme Court decision that came out in June called Slaughter versus United States, or Trump versus Slaughter, I believe.
Dave Bittner: Yeah.
Ben Yelin: Basically, Slaughter was a member of the Federal Trade Commission, and there's a Supreme Court precedent going back almost 100 years that Congress can set conditions on whether a president can fire somebody without cause. In other words, it was congressional control over presidential prerogative about firing somebody.
Dave Bittner: Okay. Somebody working in the federal government.
Ben Yelin: Exactly.
Dave Bittner: Yeah.
Ben Yelin: There's this theory that's been developed in the conservative intelligentsia and the legal community over several years called the unitary executive theory, which basically means the president and only the president should have control over all executive appointments. And that's essentially what the Trump administration has been arguing. So they fired some people on these boards without cause. One of them was Rebecca Slaughter. And Slaughter challenged the circumstances of her termination and went all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said that she could be fired by the president even without cause, that they bought into this unitary executive theory. Now, the exception, which is sort of weird, is for the Federal Reserve, because Trump also tried to fire a member of the Federal Reserve. Supreme Court said that wasn't okay. I think the distinguishing factor in there is the Federal Reserve's historical role as being independent from the executive branch. But anyway, they carved that out. But the broad point is that the president can fire people on these ostensibly independent commissions.
Dave Bittner: Is this the whole thing you hear people say, on the West Wing, I serve at the pleasure of the president.
Ben Yelin: Sort of, but it was thought that there were a lot of people on these independent boards that did not serve at the pleasure of the president.
Dave Bittner: Okay.
Ben Yelin: And I think they acted in their capacity as board members thinking that they didn't serve at the pleasure of the president. And now the president, because of stuff that they've done, has fired them. There are also a lot of boards where the statute says the president has to nominate two Democrats and two Republicans, and the Democrats have to be recommended by the House Democratic leader and the Senate, Senate Democratic leader. And that kept some of these boards, the Federal Trade Commission, FCC, as at least notionally bipartisan. But this decision throws that out of the window.
Dave Bittner: So let me just pause you for a second here. So is this a situation where Congress was placing these people on the boards, but the president has the ability to fire them? Or?
Ben Yelin: Well, Congress sets the parameters of who gets to go on the board.
Dave Bittner: Okay.
Ben Yelin: These are ultimately presidential appointments. So some of them were appointed prior to Trump taking office, including Rebecca Slaughter. But they were appointed by some president or another. So this just extends the president's power to be able to fire people without cause. What the statute said, what was the accepted precedent for nearly 100 years, is that that person could be removed only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. And the Supreme Court said that those standards themselves are constitutional. The president, all executive powers are vested in the president. He can fire basically who he wants.
Dave Bittner: Okay.
Ben Yelin: So, what does this have to do with data sharing? So we have data sharing agreements with the European Union. The agreements permit data transfers only when the receiving country provides privacy protections that are considered essentially equivalent to those in the European Union. We've come up with these complex data transfer arrangements, and this one guy, our friend Max Schrems, keeps challenging them. He is an European activist who believes that we shouldn't have these free data transfers between the U.S. and the EU because the U.S. isn't properly protective of people's data. And he's brought these agreements to the European Court of Justice and twice has gotten them struck down. So he's an Austrian privacy activist who's been very successful in pointing this out.
Dave Bittner: Okay, a bit of a gad fly.
Ben Yelin: Exactly.
Dave Bittner: Yeah. We have come up with a new agreement. It was codified during the later Biden years. It's a new data-sharing agreement. There are interesting aspects of it. One problem they did solve is there's now an avenue for Europeans to challenge the collection of data by U.S. entities. So far, only one European has made use of that authority over the past several years. But data transfers are very important for a number of reasons. The first is just economic. It supports a free and open internet. Without free data transfers, it would just complicate a lot of business transactions. And then the other is intelligence collection. Our old friend, Section 702, the authority that allows the government to collect communications of non-U.S. persons abroad. A lot of that data depends on lawful transfers of personal data from Europe to the United States. Okay.
Ben Yelin: And the concern here is that this new Supreme Court decision might throw this new agreement, this data protection agreement, in flux, because the data protection agreement relies on these privacy protections being enforced by independent authorities. So if U.S. regulators and oversight bodies the FTC are no longer viewed as sufficiently independent, then the entire legal basis for this agreement could be challenged, and Max Schrems is going to challenge it.
Dave Bittner: Okay. [laughs] That's funny. So count on it.
Ben Yelin: Yeah. To my knowledge, the case has not been filed yet.
Dave Bittner: Okay.
Ben Yelin: But I believe it's going to be filed in the very near future. It'll make its way to the European Court of Justice.
Dave Bittner: Right. Max is licking his chops.
Ben Yelin: He has another opportunity here.
Dave Bittner: Right. Alright.
Ben Yelin: I don't know how he has time for all of this. I mean, filing any lawsuit is very time-consuming and expensive. Yeah. But I guess this is what Mr. Schrems lives for, and more power to him.
Dave Bittner: Okay.
Ben Yelin: So it's not just the FTC. They point out that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which is supposed to be a watchdog within the executive branch on civil liberties concerns with electronic surveillance, that President Trump has hollowed out that board. He fired, I think, all but one member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, and that included all of the Democratic appointees. So that's just more evidence that U.S. agencies cannot and will not provide independent oversight while this Slaughter decision comes into effect, and that throws these data sharing agreements in flux. I should point out that in this article, they note that not everybody agrees with this view. They quoted this privacy attorney, Austin Mooney, who said that the FTC's independence wasn't actually a central element of the data privacy framework, and that this challenge may be a stretch. I disagree with that. It's not just about the FTC. I think it's about the fact that you can't count on any of these agencies being independent if the president retains ultimate authority over all of its members, no matter what they do. I think it'll be a chilling effect on the members of all of these commissions, thinking that even if they try to evaluate the merits of any sort of decision they have to make, they always have to think in the back of their head that the president can fire them. And that'll impact what they decide to do. Plus, I would never doubt Schrems. This guy, as litigants go, is on quite a hot streak here. So, this is going to be an issue. I think it's possible that Schrems wins, and we have to come up with another data sharing agreement. And if that's the case, I think it's going to be very difficult to come to an agreement. Relations between the EU and the US government right now aren't exactly at a high point.
Dave Bittner: Right.
Ben Yelin: And so the consequences could be severe.
Dave Bittner: What would be the consequences? Is this a matter of wider moats and taller walls between the two nations when it comes to just commerce?
Ben Yelin: Yeah, absolutely. So actually, the big companies have workarounds generally. They can come up with their own contractual agreements. Having a privacy framework in place absolves companies from having to come up with these expensive contractual agreements. It just allows as a baseline the ability to have this free flow of data. So it could have the effect of locking a lot of smaller companies out of international business opportunities, just because it's hard to come up with a contractual data sharing agreement and it's something that just adds a big burden. Data sharing is a major driver of economic activity. So obviously that's going to have a big impact there. And then the fact that Section 702 relies not only on data collection with the European Union and these lawful transfers of personal data from Europe, but significantly on lawful transfers of personal data from Europe. We share a lot of the same adversaries. There's a lot of information-sharing about potential threats. If that comes into question, the ability to freely share that information, then we could lose our top intelligence capabilities when it comes to this crown jewel of foreign intelligence. Worth mentioning, by the way, this law is not currently in effect.
Dave Bittner: That's right [laughs].
Ben Yelin: It expired, and Congress is fighting about how and whether to reauthorize it, but this is all assuming at some point they are able to get it reauthorized.
Dave Bittner: So, is this another example of something that was just considered to be a norm within how things run in D.C. and then President Trump decided to go his own way.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, and his way was ratified by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.
Dave Bittner: Right.
Ben Yelin: I think this decision has been anticipated for a while. It starts in the legal academic community, and there's been this criticism of the precedent case, which was called Humphrey's Executor, going back a long time, thinking that that case that prohibits the president from firing certain officers without cause, that that case itself was a misinterpretation of the Constitution, that it violates separation of powers. Congress shouldn't have any control over executive branch appointees. There's some textual support for that in the Constitution, when it just talks about the supremacy of the president himself over the executive branch. But we have been relying on this idea that the president can't just fire anybody at any time for any reason, to trust the independent judgment of some of these boards. And now that trust gets thrown out the window. So I think with every decision that one of these boards makes, I think we have to understand the context of all these people know that their job is at stake and that the president is watching them. And if they don't do what he wants, they could be fired. And that's not just true for President Trump, it's true for any future presidents. So I think there's just going to be less independence coming from these agencies. And it's that very independence that Europe has relied on in agreeing to these data sharing agreements.
Dave Bittner: But in terms of Congress itself, you mentioned earlier that sometimes the legislation was written in such a way that says, this board shall be comprised of two Republicans, two Democrats. Is that off the table then? Does Congress not even try to do that?
Ben Yelin: Well, the language is still there, but given this firing authority that the president has, it's kind of unenforceable. All of that language still applies, but you could appoint two Democratic members and the president could just fire them at any time for any reason.
Dave Bittner: And not be obligated to replace them?
Ben Yelin: Not be obligated to replace them at all. Sometimes that might mean that these agencies like the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board do not have a quorum to do business. But the president doesn't really care about that because he doesn't want to see anything come from the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Dave Bittner: Right.
Ben Yelin: So maybe part of the purpose is to not have a quorum. And this decision gives the president the ability to do things like that. And the FTC is a big one just because it's an important agency, it enforces consumer protection laws. And at this point, I think it's safe to say it is no longer secure from presidential influence and meddling. And that has to be a concern for both people in the United States who rely on the independent judgment of these agencies and people around the world who rely on it.
Dave Bittner: So it really is a fundamental question of the balance of power. And you have the two sides. On one side, you have folks saying, no, no, the executive has this power. It's in the Constitution. Our interpretation of the Constitution is that this is something the President's entitled to. And the other side saying, no, no, we want this congressional oversight.
Ben Yelin: Yeah. And, the Supreme Court has overturned a good number of precedents over the past several years. And this is just another one to add to the list. Conservatives were extremely frustrated for a long time by Humphrey's Executor because oftentimes they'd come into power and there would be Democratic holdovers at some of these agencies that they were prohibited from firing, and they could grind the gears of a Republican president's initiatives. And they thought that that violates their prerogative under the executive branch to choose who enforces the laws. So they were waiting forever for Humphrey's Executor to get overturned, and they finally achieved this victory, except as it applies to the Federal Reserve. But that's a question for another day.
Dave Bittner: A different Supreme Court, or --
Ben Yelin: Yeah, I think they were reluctant to do that because the stock market relies on an independent Federal Reserve.
Dave Bittner: I see.
Ben Yelin: If you have Trump just being "cut interest rates now," and they do it, then that creates a lot of uncertainty in the markets.
Dave Bittner: Right. And there's nothing the stock market hates more than uncertainty.
Ben Yelin: Exactly.
Dave Bittner: Yeah.
Ben Yelin: So I think, if I'm being a little bit cynical here, Dave --
Dave Bittner: You? Ben?
Ben Yelin: That's maybe what was on the mind of some of the justices in carving out this exception for the Federal Reserve. What they would say is: well, the Federal Reserve is special. It goes back to our nation's founding. It was always intended to be independent, et cetera, et cetera.
Dave Bittner: Right, right.
Ben Yelin: Sure. They came up with a justification. I think it's a carve-out for their own safety.
Dave Bittner: Interesting. Wow. Alright. We will have a link to that story in the show notes. Let's take a quick break here to hear from our show sponsor. We will be right back after these messages. [ Music ] So, Ben, I can't help myself when it comes to a good Flock camera story, and I got a couple of them this week that I've combined into one thing here.
Ben Yelin: I love a good Flock camera story, so I'm excited. >> Dave Bittner:So there's this saying that, one story is an anecdote, but two start to look a pattern. This first story comes from the publication The Drive, and this is from editor Joel Feder, who was out test-driving a Range Rover. So, as part of his job as an editor at an automotive publication, the manufacturers provide him and his colleagues with vehicles to drive, to test, and then they write the reviews. So he was out and about in this Range Rover, which is -- Minding his own business.
Dave Bittner: Minding his own business -- which is a very expensive vehicle. I believe this article said this car was over $150,000. And he was out shopping with his wife, went back to the car in the parking lot, got in, and suddenly found himself boxed in by four police cars. Just lights ablaze, sirens. They say they even had a drone overhead, which is interesting for a non-violent crime. But --
Ben Yelin: They take this very seriously. I mean, in their mind, it is a stolen vehicle, which not only is a crime itself, but that could be an indication that a greater crime has been committed.
Dave Bittner: I guess.
Ben Yelin: It's a gateway to other crimes.
Dave Bittner: Sure, we'll go with that.
Ben Yelin: Yeah.
Dave Bittner: I wonder -- so with the drone, I imagine the police officers, sometimes saying, ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, we get to play with our toys.
Ben Yelin: I know. I know. Break out the drones!
Dave Bittner: Yes. Yes. We're going to put that grant money to good use. Anyway, turns out a New Jersey license plate had been incorrectly reported. Evidently it was lost during a photo shoot involving this particular Range Rover in California. Okay? So let's just take stock here. The test driving was happening in Minnesota. License plate was reported missing in California.
Ben Yelin: And it was a New Jersey license plate.
Dave Bittner: A New Jersey license plate, missing in California. Range Rover is in Minnesota.
Ben Yelin: But Flock is a -- Flock is nationwide. It's all over the place.
Dave Bittner: That's right. That's right. So the license plate had been incorrectly entered into the database. And so this error propagated through Flock's nationwide system, and the officers treated the alert as a stolen vehicle stop. So basically, what happened was every time this editor drove by a Flock camera, it would get pinged, and the police would get alerted. Hey, this car that you guys are looking for, this thing that's been flagged as a potential stolen vehicle, it just drove by.
Ben Yelin: Stolen vehicle alert!
Dave Bittner: Right, right. So the police think that this car is in this parking lot at a shopping center. It just got pinged. They're like, great. Here we go. We're going to do our job. We're going to bring someone to justice. We're going to recover the stolen vehicle. So that's story Number 1. Story Number 2: this is reporting from 404 Media. The LAPD is allowing its contract with Flock to expire. They had an audit with their inspector general and they found that over a two-month period, officers had investigated over 160 drivers whose vehicles had been flagged as stolen, but ultimately were not.
Ben Yelin: That's what we call false positives.
Dave Bittner: Right. So the audit said that inaccurate or outdated information left legitimate drivers on hot lists, which triggered alerts, and they said that often led to high-risk traffic stops. So I've heard police officer friends and colleagues say that traffic stops are one of the most dangerous things that police officers do.
Ben Yelin: Totally.
Dave Bittner: Because it's an unknown situation. Also, just standing by the side of the road is dangerous.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, I mean, some people have firearms, first of all, things can be escalated and can get out of control. But yeah, as you said, the simple fact that you're pulling over to the side of the road, oftentimes you're on a shoulder that's very narrow and cars are zooming by. So it's just naturally unsafe.
Dave Bittner: Yeah. So, their audit also found that there were thousands of vehicles that were tracked during the review period without any resulting police action. So, really, what ties these stories together is not so much the cameras. I mean, they did what they were designed to do, but they distributed what was, in this case, bad data at machine speed. So with the editor, you have a single reporting error, and he finds himself surrounded by police in a parking lot, and he didn't do anything wrong. He's doing his job.
Ben Yelin: See, this is to me a governance issue on the part of Flock. If there were a very limited number of false positives, you might say it's not worth catapulting this entire process. It's not worth putting the kibosh on this entire business. We can't shut down. Let's just review our quality controls, our protocols, et cetera, and try and figure out what's causing these problems. But when we have the scale of a problem like this, 161 drivers over a two-month period, there's something fundamentally wrong with the algorithm. And in the case of the Range Rover, when one single missing digit causes something as severe as a traffic stop where somebody gets surrounded by four police officers and a drone, that's something that's fundamentally wrong. So, whomever is in charge of governance at Flock Camera should really take stock of this and take it seriously, especially for an organization that's already under the microscope. Anybody that conducts surveillance at scale here, especially nationwide, is going to be looked at disfavorably by a lot of people, just to be frank about it.
Dave Bittner: Yes.
Ben Yelin: And so, to have these high-profile incidents where bad things are happening because of what seems to me Flock screw-ups in whatever their recognition capabilities are. It seems bad.
Dave Bittner: Yeah, just the lack of human oversight that, in that particular case, the police were being sent on a wild goose chase. And it was triggered by another police agency across the country, right? So you've got this local police force who, in good faith, they are trying to help their colleagues in another part of the country. And you can understand their self-interest from their point of view. There's a crime being committed in their community. They want to tamp down on that. But they're being sent on a wild goose chase, putting themselves in harm's way.
Ben Yelin: And there's a limited number of police officers in a jurisdiction. There are lots of other legitimate things that police could be doing instead of cornering a vehicle that was not actually stolen. So it turns out that it's also a waste of law enforcement resources.
Dave Bittner: Right. And the thing I've heard law enforcement folks say, even down to just beat cops, is that, hey, this is a really good tool. And so before you criticize it, it could be your family member who gets saved from some bad situation because we had this tool at our disposal. I'm sympathetic to that, but it's interesting to me that a police department as large as the LAPD, which is well-funded and vast, has decided that Flock cameras aren't worth what they're paying for them, or the the potential liability might be not worth it.
Ben Yelin: Yeah, I mean that's a profound finding on their part because it means they're foregoing these very obviously helpful capabilities.
Dave Bittner: Right.
Ben Yelin: So, whatever value they're deriving from Flock cameras and effectuating arrests is being outweighed by the fact that they're getting all these false positives, they're creating these dangerous traffic stops and they are diverting law enforcement resources. That should say something pretty profound to Flock. Again, I think this could be fixable. It's just obviously Flock doesn't have the proper governance structures in place to do proper oversight, verification, have a prescribed process for additional validation before acting on automated alerts. So there has to be one level of, or two levels of human review before the alert goes out. These are the types of things that could be solved with a better governance process, and we're just not seeing that here.
Dave Bittner: Yeah. It struck me, one of the things that I hadn't really thought all the way through, it makes perfect sense that these systems are being used in a push way, where a vehicle is flagged, and every time it passes by one of these Flock cameras, a push notification goes out to local law enforcement. In my mind, I had thought of Flock as being more of a database, more a card catalog at a library, right?
Ben Yelin: Right. Right, right, right.
Dave Bittner: Where police could go and query the database and say, hey, has a car been by here anytime soon? It makes perfect sense that they'd be taking advantage of the ability to push that information. And from a law enforcement point of view, I can understand the utility of that.
Ben Yelin: Oh yeah.
Dave Bittner: But it does change the equation, doesn't it?
Ben Yelin: It really does. I mean, because real-time alerts present just a unique set of harms.
Dave Bittner: Right.
Ben Yelin: The immediacy of it is the biggest aspect of it. There's no time to stop and consider what's actually going on. And it's almost a separate call for service. And I think sometimes you have automation bias where law enforcement or whomever is more trusting of an algorithmic decision, because they think the machine is smarter than they are. Oh, if I'm getting this alert, that must mean that something serious has happened. Because Flock is a very complicated system, I don't understand it, so I'm going to trust this. That's problematic.
Dave Bittner: Yeah, in this case, just a typo, right? I mean, right?
Ben Yelin: One simple typo, the lack of a zero in a license plate causes these types of problems. I mean, I think in that sense, it's encouraging that the LA Police Department is taking action here that not everybody is just going to accept the deficiencies of Flock just because it's useful as a tool to fight crime. And I think it's possible that other police departments across the country, if confronted with a high number of false positives or false negatives might reconsider that relationship as well. And then, once that relationship is reconsidered in a bunch of different jurisdictions, Flock loses a lot of its effectiveness if it's not a nationwide tool, because the ubiquity of it is why so many police departments want to have it. The fact that they can search for records nationwide.
Dave Bittner: Right.
Ben Yelin: Yeah.
Dave Bittner: Right. Yeah. I wonder, obviously, I have my own bias here. I'm not a fan of Flock cameras. I think anybody who listens to the show has probably concluded that. And I admit to that bias. I guess what I'm wondering is to what degree will we see a community ground swell against these? I see this to a certain extent in my own community, and local Facebook groups. People don't --
Ben Yelin: A bunch of nerds.
Dave Bittner: Yeah, but people are wary of them. But I wonder at what point does a small collection of folks who are civil liberties and privacy fans, does that turn into a local legislator saying, hey, we don't want this in our community? Right?
Ben Yelin: I have a feeling it's going to have to be one terrible catalyzing event. I mean, I hate to even think about this, but someone is inappropriately tagged by Flock and there's a traffic stop and somebody gets hit by a car and loses their life. I hate to think we'd have to get to that point, but maybe we do to just have a full groundswell of support for putting the brakes on this type of tool. Because I think the way it's gone is because law enforcement sees it as so effective, not that they're blindly accepting using Flock cameras, but it's just the default. Why wouldn't we want to use this tool? And the only way to get them to think, to get law enforcement or lawmakers to think otherwise, is to have a major catalyzing event that can change public hearts and minds. I don't want to disappoint you, but I don't think your small little group of civil libertarians is going to solve this problem overnight.
Dave Bittner: No.
Ben Yelin: But maybe I'm being overly pessimistic.
Dave Bittner: No, I think you're right. I think you're right. And look, it's not like there isn't utility to this tool. I get it.
Ben Yelin: Totally.
Dave Bittner: I just, I think, as you and I have talked about many, many times, a big issue here is just the velocity. It's a different velocity. Yeah.
Ben Yelin: Because we've had license plate readers for a long time. The technology itself is not new. What's new is you have a nationwide database and you have real-time alerts. And that's something that's fundamentally different.
Dave Bittner: It's also worth noting that although the Flock cameras are tagged as being license plate readers, which is their primary function, they do much more than that, to the point of some of them have facial recognition. It can recognize the make and model of your car. They're tracking things like damage to cars. So it's not just your license plate number that's being tracked, there's a lot of other identifying aspects of your vehicle that are being flagged along the way.
Ben Yelin: You want to talk about a preview of coming attractions, of maybe a deep dive we can do at some point, is how does the Chatrie decision affect the legality of all this license plate data collection?
Dave Bittner: Yeah.
Ben Yelin: That was a question posed by one Professor Orin Kerr on a social media site to remain nameless, and we had a little discussion about it.
Dave Bittner: Oh, did you?
Ben Yelin: Two tweets back and forth between one another being the discussion. But --
Dave Bittner: Still.
Ben Yelin: I think that's something I would love to talk about.
Dave Bittner: Alright. Well, maybe once again, we'll reach out to Professor Kerr and see if --
Ben Yelin: The invitation is open. Always open.
Dave Bittner: Alright. I will reach out to producer Jen and see if she can put out yet another request.
Ben Yelin: He could only be rejected so many times before --
Dave Bittner: we're going to wear him down.
Ben Yelin: We're going to wear him down.
Dave Bittner: We're going to wear him down. That's right. If any of our listeners are friends or colleagues or associates of Professor Kerr --
Ben Yelin: Students that -- - -
Dave Bittner: Students that have a little sway with him, or can just drop our names, we would appreciate it. He's kind of our dream guest. So.
Ben Yelin: There's very few people who devote their lives to the issues we talk about on this, and he's one of them of them. One of probably five people in the whole country. But he just happens to be very active on social media. So, yeah, and he's smart.
Dave Bittner: Alright. Alright. We will have a link to both of those stories in our show notes. And of course, we would love to hear from you. If there's something you'd us to consider for the show, please email us. It's caveat@n2k.com. And 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 to 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.
