Breaking big tech's hold.

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 a new potential California law on regulating teens' access to addictive algorithmic social media. I got the story of Marylanders filing a complaint against data brokers. 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. All right, Ben. We've got some good stuff to cover here this week. You want to start things off for us.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. So California's back in the news. Lawmakers in their legislature are poised to enact a bill, Assembly Bill 1709; and Governor Newsom will probably sign it, although we're not 100% on that. But this bill would prohibit social media platforms from providing certain addictive features to any users under the age of 16. So the features they're targeting are recommendation algorithms, infinite scroll, autoplay, other types of engagement maxing design elements, basically, all the things that my kids use every day, even though they're much younger.

Dave Bittner: Social media's social media.

Ben Yelin: And, you know, that's part of why I think this law is good because there are a lot of parents who are similarly situated to us who our kids are not going to listen to us when they say, like, you need to stop poisoning your brain through your use of this consumption of algorithmic social media.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Ben Yelin: But if it's just unavailable to them as a matter of state law, then that makes our lives a lot easier. So I kind of see that as -- as an important justification. So, to clarify, like, this is not banning teens from social media. It's more a requirement for the platforms that they would have to redesign their services for younger users. So there would be the equivalent of, like, a YouTube Kids.

Dave Bittner: Oh. Okay.

Ben Yelin: But for users under 16 where it's just a different setup. It's vague enough that I don't know exactly how it's going to work. But, if it's not algorithm based, I mean, it's just going to be we're going to go back to the early 2000s. And you just search for the videos that you're interested in, or you search for the content that you're interested in. You are provided that content as long as it is legal, and then you are -- nothing is recommended. You have to go back to the drawing board and search again.

Dave Bittner: I have some insights onto this because when -- when I -- when I did the right thing, Ben, and left Twitter, nudge, nudge --

Ben Yelin: You're just a -- you're a -- you're a stronger man than me. Maybe one day.

Dave Bittner: I went over to Mastodon, which has no algorithm. And so the way that works, which is I imagine how this would have to work, is you find other people who are posting content that you're interested in. There's still hashtags.

Ben Yelin: Right.

Dave Bittner: So you can search around based on that. And so your feed is just populated by other people you've chosen to follow, but nothing gets automatically recommended to you. I guess in a way there is -- there's an organic recommendation engine, let's call it, because let's say I'm following you on Mastodon; and you -- I'm going to use the Twitter term -- you retweet --

Ben Yelin: Right.

Dave Bittner: -- something from someone else that you follow, then I'll see it from you. And I -- then I can consider, oh, look. Ben recommended this. That's interesting.

Ben Yelin: But at least it's a human being that you know, at least conceivably; it's a human being that you know recommending it, and it's not the algorithm.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: I mean, sometimes I step back from my social media use -- I think it's important for all of us to do this -- and be like, am I actually angry because something organic happened in my social media feed, and I just happened to come across tweets that annoyed the hell out of me? Or is this all the result of the algorithm where, like, I've interacted with tweets of certain politicians that I disagree with, and so they are going to keep putting that person's tweets in my feed. And it's going to keep making me angry, and I think kind of all of us lose track of how powerful these algorithms are and how they can not only control our consumption of social media but, at least in my case, they control my moods sometimes.

Dave Bittner: Right. And I think it's important to remember that the algorithm is not acting in your best interest. There may be an illusion that it is because it feels like it's putting things in front of you that you're interested in, and that's part of it. But, above all, the algorithm is functioning in the platform provider's best interest, which is to keep you engaged and keep you infinitely scrolling.

Ben Yelin: And it works on adults, but I think it's -- it works even better on kids. I mean, they're more impressionable. You know, their interests aren't as well-defined, which means that algorithms can kind of steer kids to particular interests.

Dave Bittner: They got those soft, pliable brains still.

Ben Yelin: They really do. So I really do see the justification for this. A couple of other states have tried similar laws. South Carolina and Idaho have enacted versions of this, but obviously it's a bigger deal that it's California. For one, it's the biggest state or most populous state. And, then, this is Silicon Valley; so you're going to be putting restrictions on many of the companies that exist in your state and have a lot of political influence in that state. And, then, for the same reason, CCPA was so significant and other California things like AI regulation, companies, in order to comply with this California law, are just going to have to change their practices writ large. It's just going to be hard for them to offer an under 16 service to the other 49 states and then a separate one to California. It's too hard to keep track of. You know, that's why the state statutes, while seemingly only applying within those states, have these national implications. So the bill's author, an assembly member by the name of Josh Lowenthal, says the goal is to force these companies to change product design. We're not trying to keep kids off the internet entirely. We are just trying to minimize the harms to mental health, to things like body image, and to keep our kids from being unduly addicted to their screens. And the fight against big tech has been uphill in our legal system and at least among most state legislatures, but the article that we're posting here notes that there have been some successes recently. There's been a lot of legal and political pressure on Meta and other social media firms. We've had favorable jury verdicts and a lot of litigation focusing on how these platforms have been designed to be addictive.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. They're in the midst of a trial right now, aren't they? Meta is. Yeah.

Ben Yelin: Exactly. So this is something that's becoming much more of a live issue. So what are our potential problems here? Obviously, this is going to cause a lawsuit. So the day --

Dave Bittner: Count on it.

Ben Yelin: You can 100% count on it. They -- the day that this is signed into law, I guarantee you Net Choice, which is like the trade group association for most of these companies, is going to file suit, federal court in the Northern District of California; and they're going to raise constitutional claims. The biggest one is the company's own First Amendment rights. So they're going to argue, as they have in many previous similar cases, that their own algorithms, their content recommendation engines, are themselves expressive content. That is an editorial choice, and so they can't be restricted from that type of -- that type of speech. That would be a prior restraint on their speech. It's a protected judgment under the Constitution, and it's incumbent upon parents and schools to police their own children and not to do so in a way that curtails the constitutional rights of these companies.

Dave Bittner: Can I interject?

Ben Yelin: Yeah. Absolutely.

Dave Bittner: We don't let kids look at porn.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. I mean, so we have this Supreme Court decision that came out of a Texas statute which requires age checks for pornographic sites. I think the interests there are very different. It was a six-three decision. The justices basically said that the complaints from the porn -- pornography industry, that this violates the First Amendment rights of adults to access these sites was just not persuasive enough, that states have a compelling interest in protecting kids from the smut of pornography and that you -- you can't assume a slippery slope that, just because there are going to be age verification requirements for pornography, that we're going to keep kids and adults away from other internet content. Like, there's something particularly gross and smutty about pornography. And that age verification, at least in the mind of the Supreme Court in that context, only has an incidental effect on protected speech. I think the state of California and other states who have passed these laws are going to have a hard time trying to argue that algorithmic social media is equivalent to pornography. Access to Facebook or access to Twitter is just not the same as access to Pornhub. And, while the state might have a compelling interest in preventing children from accessing clearly sexually explicit content, the same does not apply even for algorithms that could be dangerous.

Dave Bittner: Even the addictive angle?

Ben Yelin: I -- I think so. I mean, I just think it's a completely different category entirely. Now, what that -- what Net Choice is going to argue is that this is fundamentally different, that there's something particularly -- like, in other contexts of the law, we have restrictions on obscenity that are allowed despite the fact that they facially violate the First Amendment because, as a society, we've recognized there's something inherently gross about pornographic content. You know, I know it when I see it, right? But that's a special category in and of itself. And what Net Choice -- I'm assuming they're going to be the plaintiff in this case. What they're going to argue is, however bad you think the algorithm is, it's not that; and, therefore, the state doesn't have that same compelling interest. And so I kind of think that's going to be the contours of a constitutional case, which I think will inevitably arise here.

Dave Bittner: Do you think they'll pause for a moment and think about how bad this looks for them to be fighting against the protection of children?

Ben Yelin: Oh, we're way past that.

Dave Bittner: I know. How adorable of me to even consider such a thing.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. I mean, that's why it's Net Choice and it's not the individual companies because, like, Net Choice as an entity is totally fine if people hate them, you know. And then the companies themselves can say, oh; it's not us. It's just the trade group that represents all the big tech companies.

Dave Bittner: It's what they're there for.

Ben Yelin: I think they -- they will be fine challenging this law as they have been fine challenging age verification for pornography. And I think, not only is it a threat to their bottom line, but I do think they have good faith. They have a good faith belief that this is restricting the First Amendment rights of the platforms themselves. And whether that argument is going to hold its own in court is an -- is an open question. But I do think it is a genuine argument. It's certainly not something that -- that's frivolous. I think it's particularly true when we're talking about the First Amendment rights of adults. So the First Amendment rights of minors are generally lessened, right? You don't have the same First Amendment rights in a public school that you do in a public square.

Dave Bittner: Right. And -- but -- so that's part of this I -- I'm having trouble with is, if we're making this, you know, an under 16 kind of thing, how's that affecting adults' rights?

Ben Yelin: So what they said in the age verification case, or at least what the plaintiffs were trying to argue there, is it is -- it presents a burden on adults for accessing content that they have a right to access.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: So, if they have to use some type of age verification measure, including giving personally identifiable information like their biometrics or their driver's license, then that is a burden from an adult expressing or I guess viewing content --

Dave Bittner: I see.

Ben Yelin: -- and, therefore, expressing their First Amendment rights.

Dave Bittner: Okay.

Ben Yelin: I'm not sure how exactly that's going to work here because I don't know what the age verification -- age verification methods are. But I think that's going to be a major element of the case where, if there are procedures that make it very difficult for adults who aren't keen about sharing information from accessing the grown-up version of these algorithms --

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: -- Then I think we're going to run into greater constitutional problems. Again, the Supreme Court sided with the state of Texas in that case about access to pornography, so I think the state of California still could have a decent chance of winning that case. But, obviously, we get back to that same difference. Is pornography equivalent to the brain damage that's been done as a result of these algorithms? And I'll leave that up to the social scientists.

Dave Bittner: You know, just -- if you'll indulge me a little side journey here for a second.

Ben Yelin: Oh. Always.

Dave Bittner: My -- my -- my wife and I with the family were at the beach a couple weeks ago when we were away on vacation. And we were down -- we visited Ocean City, Maryland, which was a place that I regularly vacationed as a young man. You know, growing up, that's where our family went every year. And one of the highlights back then in the -- in the '80s was they had the largest video arcades anywhere.

Ben Yelin: Oh, yeah.

Dave Bittner: Right. So you could play any game you wanted that were in these places. And the places still exist. But one of the things that struck us as we were walking through is that there weren't any classic video games. Like, there wasn't a Pac-Man machine. There wasn't a Donkey Kong machine to be found. They're all, other than a handful of, like, big experiential games where, like, you sit down and you put on some 3D goggles.

Ben Yelin: Right. And you're being jerked around.

Dave Bittner: Right. You're fighting zombies and things like that. It's all games of chance. It's all claw machines. It's all, you know, things where you earn coupons to get prizes. And my wife --

Ben Yelin: We've lost the art of the game, you know.

Dave Bittner: Well, my wife said, I feel like we're just training our kids to grow up to be gamblers.

Ben Yelin: And I do think there's something to that.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: You know, I've frequently been at arcades with my kids where, like, I encourage them to just enjoy the games.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: Like, if you go to an arcade, like, let's say you go to a Dave and Buster's, there are basically two paths you can take. You can try to enjoy the games themselves, or you can try and ticket max, right? So you just, like --

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: -- spin the wheel that gets you 100 tickets, and you just spin that as many times as your game card allows, and you can maximize your tickets. And my kids have frequently gone for that choice instead of just, like, the love of the game.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: The love of skeeball.

Dave Bittner: Right, right.

Ben Yelin: The love of Miss Pac-Man. And, yeah. I mean, I think part of it is it does get addictive. Winning is addictive.

Dave Bittner: Right, right. We just had a story we had on CyberWire in the past week or so about how I want to say psychologists had looked at infinite scrolling and basically said it hits all the same pleasure centers as gambling, as, you know, a slot machine because you're, you know, lose, lose, lose, lose, win. Lose, lose, win, lose, that sort of thing.

Ben Yelin: The gambling industry has maximized in a way that I think algorithms have perfected, as well, like, exactly what content they need to put in front of you so that you'll stay there. So, for gambling, it's like how many times you have to win for you to not leave the table. That's how many times you're going to win the slot machine, and I think over the past, I don't know, 10 to 15 years the big tech companies have figured that out as it relates to scrolling. They figure out exactly the type of content they need to show you to keep you glued to your smart device. Now, what the companies might say is there are good aspects to this as well. Young people find solace in community. That's what the vice president of government affairs at Net Choice says that they might not receive in the real-world.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Ben Yelin: And, again, there might be some truth to that.

Dave Bittner: All right.

Ben Yelin: It's a place where they can make relationships they might not have in the physical world. Again, possibly true. I don't think any of those legitimate interests have to do with the algorithms and some of the harms that this bill is intended to prevent. And so I think that the kind of algorithmic rot that is ruining a generation of children is its own unique problem that goes beyond just our early 2010s understanding of how social media works where it actually was a forum for interaction with our friends. It's just not that anymore.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. So bottom line it here. What do you think the odds are of this making its way through the lawsuits and becoming something in California?

Ben Yelin: I'd say it's at least got a 50/50 shot. You know, it all depends on what judge you're going to draw in the Northern District of California, and are you going to get an injunction? And are there procedural issues with the law? Is the law going to be voided for being too vague? So that's one of the issues that's brought up in this article and other articles I've read, that the term addictive could be an issue in litigation because the statute doesn't have a clear definition of what counts as addictive. And sometimes laws can be struck down as void for vagueness, that it's impossible for people to or companies to know how to comply with the law because they're so vague. So we could see something like that. But I -- I still think, given what we've seen in this other litigation against Meta, given what we saw in the Supreme Court case dealing with age verification in the Texas law, I still think there's a good chance that this type of regulation could be upheld; and it's going to change the contours of kids' access to social media in a way that's probably beneficial for society, although my my kids might be annoyed because they've gotten used to the glory of the algorithm where --

Dave Bittner: Yeah. It's too late for them.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. It is too late for them. I mean, they're already addicted. But hopefully this will protect the next generation of kids.

Dave Bittner: Right, right. All of us -- like all of us kids who grew up with lead paint and, you know, like, it's too late for us.

Ben Yelin: It's too late for us. Yeah.

Dave Bittner: We just try to save the next generation.

Ben Yelin: We just try to pay it forward.

Dave Bittner: Yeah, yeah. All right. Well, we will have a link to that story in the show notes. Let's take a quick break here to hear from our show sponsors. We'll be right back. And we are back. My story this week, Ben, comes from NPR. They did a story about our home -- well, my home state, your adopted state of Maryland.

Ben Yelin: You can call it my home state.

Dave Bittner: All right. Wow. Okay. Yeah. Welcome.

Ben Yelin: I've been 16 years. I feel like I'm officially now a Marylander, but not as much of a Marylander as you.

Dave Bittner: Okay. Yes. It's hard to beat me in terms of being a hardcore Marylander. So there's some privacy advocates who are asking Maryland to investigate some data brokers here. One of the things that struck me here that I imagine you have some good insight in, the story, actually, the lead sentence on the stories is Maryland has passed some of the strictest data privacy provisions in the country. You concur?

Ben Yelin: I do. Yeah. I mean, we were -- Maryland as a state was a little later to the game than, say, California or even a state like Colorado. But, in the past few years we've passed very robust data privacy legislation; and I think Maryland is at the forefront in data privacy protections. And I think, given the -- what's happened in the past few legislative sessions, I mean, that's something that I expect to continue.

Dave Bittner: So let's start off with some of the general bits of information and allegations here before we dig into some of the specifics that caught my eye. So these are some privacy and civil rights groups that are asking the state of Maryland to investigate data brokers. They're accusing the data brokers of illegally collecting and selling Marylanders' sensitive personal and geolocation data. The companies they're targeting include PenLink, Thomson Reuters, Motorola, LexisNexis, Flock.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. It's funny how Flock came up in this story.

Dave Bittner: Well --

Ben Yelin: I know every story is a Flock story these days, but I wasn't expecting it to show up here.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. We'll get back to that.

Ben Yelin: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: There's a particular item here that caught my eye. So they're going after law enforcement's access to commercial data. They're saying that some of these companies sell cell phone or vehicle location information to law enforcement without the legal process required under Maryland law. Do you have insights on that, Ben, what the legal process under Maryland law might be that's different from other places? Is there, dare we say, a warrant?

Ben Yelin: It's certainly not a warrant. But, I mean, it's mostly adopting our existing consumer protection statutes to apply to data. So things like the right to be forgotten, the right to take down information about oneself, things that we've seen in legislation from GDPR to CCPA have been adopted by and large. There are some nuances here and there, but that's kind of by and large what's been adopted by the Maryland General Assembly.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. I guess, not surprisingly, ICE is a major focus here. Maryland is a blue, a very blue state; and so they're resistant to some of the activities of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement folks here in the state of Maryland. And so the complaint is saying that the data brokers are providing personal or location data that can support ICE, and so they're pushing back on that. That's on brand for a blue state like Maryland.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. And there also has been in the DMV, as we say here in the Mid-Atlantic --

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: -- Delaware, Maryland, Virginia Peninsula. There's been significant increases in immigration enforcement actions, even in the last like month or so. It's been in the news. It's certainly something that you see in local news sources, in particular. So I think part of the reaction here is the step up, the visible step up in enforcement that we've seen from Immigrations and -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. So here's the thing that caught my eye that I want to dig into, and this is related to Flock. According to this article, Maryland defines precise geolocation data as information capable of identifying the location of a consumer, mobile device, or vehicle within a 1,750-foot radius. So that's about a quarter mile. If that's the case, and Maryland prohibits that, how can a license plate data reader be legal at all?

Ben Yelin: That's a great question. I think it probably has to do with how they define, like, protected data. And it's -- it's more what happens with the data once it is collected. Obviously, the state collects that type of data without the use of Flock cameras, just through regular traffic cameras. And that has a geolocation tag, right?

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: So that's obviously been legal. I think the way this law is worded is it's just about data retention and not necessarily about the collection of the data in the first place and who has access to it and what it's used for. That would be my impression. I mean, I -- that's not a very satisfying answer because, like, your read of the statute there is certainly interesting.

Dave Bittner: Right. The license plate reader people saying, you know, a vehicle with this license plate came within a quarter mile of this location. But we all know, if that's where the camera is, that's where it was read.

Ben Yelin: Right.

Dave Bittner: It seems to me like it should be prohibited to share that precise data, according to Maryland law. But I guess that's one of the things that the advocates are questioning here, right?

Ben Yelin: Yeah. One of these data broker companies says is that the company doesn't process or sell precise location data of Marylanders. What that probably means, if I'm reading between the lines, is they're not keeping a dossier on the whole of a person's movement through the use of automated license plate readers. So the collection of -- the use of Flock cameras or other ALPR devices is legal. It's just that companies nor the government are allowed to process or sell precise location data of the whole of a person's movements.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Ben Yelin: There are other reasons why, and obviously we could get into a whole rabbit hole on on Flock. But there are other reasons why the state of Maryland would want to have cameras at these locations. And even though, yes, it is capturing you at a specific time at a specific location, that's -- I don't think that's what the law intended when it addressed precise geolocation data and information derived from technology that can precisely and accurately identify within a radius of 1,750 feet the specific location of a consumer. I think that's too literal of an interpretation of what the statute is trying to do, in my opinion.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. And I guess the bottom line here is that these privacy advocates are worried that these data purchases could bypass judicial oversight, and that's really been what we've been talking about the whole time here, right --

Ben Yelin: Yeah. I mean it's really an end around for the Fourth Amendment. Previously, law enforcement agencies would have to do investigative work. They would have to issue subpoenas to get access to any type of surveillance footage. And, even though the legal standard for a subpoena is lower than the probable cause standard for a warrant, there is still a standard. And you can challenge subpoenas in court. But, when we're talking about purchasing data, there's no standards. You can just buy the data, and then it's yours. So it really is an end around of the First Amendment. This is something that Congress has tried to address on a bipartisan basis where any privately purchased data that otherwise would be subject to rigorous Fourth Amendment requirements should nonetheless still be subject to those rigorous Fourth Amendment requirements. It's something like the Do Not Sell Our Data Act --

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: -- which I think we've addressed on the -- on this podcast before. So it's not a new issue. I think, in the absence of any sort of federal statute on this, it is incumbent on -- on states to take action. It's really hard for states to go after data brokers for a number of reasons. For one, law enforcement agencies rely on purchasing this data for solving crimes. You know, it's one of the reasons why Flock has become so ubiquitous. It's an effective crime-fighting tool. So the state is going to be reluctant to handicap local law enforcement agencies.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: But, also, enforcement's really difficult. And that's why using the attorney general's office under our existing consumer protection statutes that apply to data is perhaps the best vehicle of doing this and why I think this is a very wise and timely consumer complaint.

Dave Bittner: Having been behind the scenes and kind of knowing the tone of how legislators in Maryland function, do you -- what do you think the odds are of Maryland's attorney general taking up something like this?

Ben Yelin: I think the odds are high. The press that Flock cameras have gotten in the past couple of months exceeds what we've seen over the past several years for a technology like this. I think it's finally pierced that -- it's pierced the news cycle. It's something that people are -- are talking about. And I think the Maryland General Assembly, even if they haven't honed the perfect legislation to address that problem, are very -- members of the General Assembly are very proactive about proposing legislation to rein in things like Flock safety cameras or data purchasing. And the legislature is very nimble. They can act much more quickly than the United States Congress, and they've done so in passing these other strong data privacy laws. So, yeah. I mean, there are all different types of enforcement tools. What privacy advocates always want is a private right of action so that people have a right of action to sue these companies directly. That's not always included in the bills that the General Assembly passes. So the next best enforcement mechanism is the use of the Attorney General's office in pursuing these investigations and following these consumer complaints. And I think that's what you see going on here.

Dave Bittner: You know, I kind of wish that Maryland did a better job of letting the citizens know what protections they have when it comes to these sorts of things. You know, we always hear about states like California. And they get a lot of press for their consumer protections. But, in my mind, as someone who, you know, actually follows this stuff, I haven't really heard a lot of specific promotion from Maryland lawmakers about these protections.

Ben Yelin: If Maryland lawmakers want to do some native content promotion, may I suggest this podcast where we just read through the relevant data privacy statutes.

Dave Bittner: Right, right.

Ben Yelin: You know, one thing Maryland did do this year is extend some of its existing data privacy legislation to deal with immigration enforcement. So Maryland passed a law -- I believe it was in the 2026 General Assembly session -- barring data brokers from selling personal data to entities that assist with immigration enforcement. What that sentence, though, implies is that there is no law barring data brokers from selling personal data to other entities for other reasons. So there is not, like, a blanket ban on selling -- on data brokers selling personal data. This was sort of a carve out to address the very specific immigration enforcement problem, which obviously Maryland as a blue state is going to be something that lawmakers are going to care a lot about. But the consequences certainly spanned beyond immigration enforcement, just in terms of our own data privacy and how much access local law enforcement to get to this data where in the past they would have needed a warrant. So Maryland, I think, tried to narrowly address the problem of immigration enforcement. But they have not yet fully attacked the scourge of data brokers selling our data generally.

Dave Bittner: We are a tiny but mighty state, Ben.

Ben Yelin: We sure are. We punch above our weight on this stuff. I -- I truly believe that. And it might have taken us a little while, but Maryland has taken a leadership position on data privacy.

Dave Bittner: Right, right.

Ben Yelin: So hats off to us.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. That's right. That's right. And we have a cool flag.

Ben Yelin: Best state flag.

Dave Bittner: All right. We will have a link to that story in the show notes. And, of course, we would love to hear from you. If there's something you'd like 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 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 Bitner.

Ben Yelin: And I'm Ben Yelin.

Dave Bittner: Thanks for listening.