Addressing the social media algorithms.

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 how chatbot chats are showing up in legal cases. I've got the story of Australia's attempt to rein in social media. 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 ] All right, Ben, we've got some good stuff to cover here this week. Why don't you start things off for us?

Ben Yelin: So my story is about chatbots and about how the output of your chats and chatbots might end up in a courtroom, so you should probably be a little bit more careful about what you put in your chatbot chats.

Dave Bittner: Uh-oh.

Ben Yelin: I know. So this story comes from The Washington Post. I think people have a misconception that their conversations are going to remain private. The frontier models retain all of the information that you give them for their own business purposes, for training, etc. I'll get more into this, but we don't have any Fourth Amendment protection, really, against what we put in chat bots.

Dave Bittner: Oh, because you're putting it in voluntarily?

Ben Yelin: Yeah, you're kind of forfeiting your expectation of privacy. You know or should know that the model that you're using is going to retain that information, and so, unlike, say, the contents of an email, which you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy there because it's supposed to be a private communication between you and another person, so far, at least, that's not how courts are seeing chatbots. So it creates this really interesting dynamic where people are telling pretty secretive things to their chatbots and not realizing that that's going to be used against them, not just in criminal cases but in civil cases. So this Washington Post exposé lists a few anecdotes. Some of these are kind of funny actually. There was a teenager -- they didn't give his full name, but he goes by RKC in the case -- who sued a bunch of the big tech companies over alleged social media addiction, and a bunch of his chatbot chats came out in discovery. So he was talking about his own family relationships and then like how he might feel about a legal settlement in the case with these big tech companies, which is kind of like giving away your strategy in a civil case.

Dave Bittner: Oh, I see.

Ben Yelin: There was a really disturbing case out of Florida where a person was describing to a chatbot how they'd commit a series of violent crimes against an ex-girlfriend, and OpenAI, to their credit, reported this to the FBI. The FBI reported to local law enforcement. This led to the defendant in that case pleading guilty. This one's kind of my favorite. This guy in Missouri named Ryan Schaefer, an MSU student, was accused of damaging multiple vehicles in kind of a drunken stupor in the middle of the night, and he basically asked ChatGPT, like, am I like -- am I really effed up right now? And ChatGPT is like, yeah, kind of seems like it. It's like I totally just ran over a bunch of cars, and that was used against him, as you can expect.

Dave Bittner: It's like the people who Google, you know, how to hide a body, or something, right?

Ben Yelin: Yes, yup, how to make a Molotov cocktail.

Dave Bittner: Right, right.

Ben Yelin: There are a couple of interesting angles here. The one is whether we should have some type of privilege, legal privilege, with our chatbots. This is something that Sam Altman has argued for that, basically, like you have privileged communications with your therapist. You have privileged communications with your attorney. Subject to certain exceptions, those communications cannot be divulged in a court of law because we want people to be candid with these trusted agents, with therapists, with attorneys. So far, courts have just not been willing to recognize that, and I think the disclaimers make very clear when you agree to the terms of service for these chatbots -- or even sometimes in conversations themselves -- that like you are not talking to your attorney here. There is no constitutionally recognized privilege. Courts are not going to acknowledge that you have some type of contractual private relationship with your chatbot, no matter how personal you're willing to get with them, so that's one interesting angle. And then the Fourth Amendment angle, you'd think that for something this personal, it might implicate Fourth Amendment protection. But as we said, you really don't have an expectation of privacy. Courts have not been willing to acknowledge a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of chatbots, and you can sort of understand why. I mean, you are willingly giving information to this third party. Under the advanced understanding of the Fourth Amendment that we've talked about after the Chatrie case, for example, maybe courts are looking more broadly at invasions of our expectations of privacy, generally, and might be able to broaden out some of the areas that deserve Fourth Amendment protection, up to and including chatbots. But until they explicitly do that, I mean, I think we just all have to be careful what we put in there because it could end up hurting us in a court of law.

Dave Bittner: Okay, so I have a couple thoughts and questions. Okay, so suppose I have a diary that I keep on my computer, right?

Ben Yelin: It's hypothetical, right?

Dave Bittner: Hypothetical, yes.

Ben Yelin: All right.

Dave Bittner: Suppose I have a diary that I keep on my computer.

Ben Yelin: Sure.

Dave Bittner: And I put all my thoughts and secrets and aspirations and desires into this diary. What's the legal status of that diary?

Ben Yelin: I think you have, for a couple of reasons, you have a Fourth Amendment interest in that diary. It's something that you intended to keep private. You have a subjective expectation of privacy. I mean, presumably you need a password or some type of biometrics to open your computer. If it's on your mobile device, law enforcement, even incident to arrest needs a warrant to search your mobile device, and it's something that you intended to keep private. If you're not sharing it with anybody else, if it's in like a notes application or you know Microsoft Word on your computer, then I do think you have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It gets a little confusing when it's like, okay, well, what if you put it in the cloud? That's kind of an unsettled area. But for the most part, I think that's different because you are manifesting that subjective expectation of privacy.

Dave Bittner: And so, because of that, it would pretty much shield it from discovery in a civil case?

Ben Yelin: Yes, that's absolutely correct. You have that expectation. The other party in a civil case would try and use the discovery process to be like, we've got wind that this person has a diary, and you could go to court and try to stop that from being released, and I think you'd be relatively successful. You're not 100% always going to be successful. Judges have a lot of discretion about what's permissible during discovery, but I think just because of that expectation, you'd have a good chance.

Dave Bittner: Yeah, I think it's interesting, and I would recommend to everyone who's actively using these chatbots just every now and then ask it what it knows about you.

Ben Yelin: Oh, it's creepy. Like it'll give you a full dossier on yourself.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: I've tried. I've asked. I've done this, and I've asked a bunch of the different models like, who is Ben Yelin? And it knows more about me than I know about myself. I mean, it's read all of my social media posts. It's read my biography at the University of Maryland, Baltimore. So yeah, I mean, you should expect and realize that this chatbot doesn't just know you from your chat output, but also because they are better than you at searching the internet.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: They can do it very, very quickly.

Dave Bittner: Right, right.

Ben Yelin: There's one other element that I think is worth discussing here, which is that a lot of people consent to having law enforcement view their device. Once you do that, I mean, you have no expectation of privacy in anything that's on your phone, whether the law enforcement would have required a warrant to obtain it.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: If they ask, you know, can you unlock your phone for me -- I want to take a look around here -- and you grant that consent, if I'm law enforcement, I'm opening up that ChatGPT app and seeing what I can find. It's probably just as revealing these days as any other application. And a lot of people when they're in that high-pressure situation, they've been arrested. Law enforcement's like, hey, let's take care of this. Everything's going to be fine as long as you're cooperative. Just give me your phone. We'll look at it for a couple minutes. We'll get you out of here. Do not do that. This does not constitute actual legal advice, but ask for an attorney, please.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: It is your constitutional right.

Dave Bittner: So this brings me to the topic of running a model locally. So, for example, I was just sitting here looking, staring at my laptop. I can run an LLM locally that doesn't connect to anything remotely anywhere. It's self-contained. It's on my computer. I download the model. Doesn't go anywhere. Would that have the same protections as, say, that diary?

Ben Yelin: I mean, I think it does because, again, it comes down to the way the courts see these types of cases, which is about the expectation of privacy.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: And if you've set up your model so that it's really internal, that it's not run by some type of third party -- which is what almost all models are run by -- that it's really in house, then, yeah, I do think you'd have an expectation of privacy in that. Now, if law enforcement came and asked you to use your fingerprint to unlock your computer, and you agree to do that, they can go into your LLM, and they can glean incriminating information about you. But I think you would have the right in that circumstance if you are asked to give the contents away of that LLM, or if the law enforcement doesn't have a warrant, but they have like a subpoena or something, I think you have a pretty good chance of quashing that subpoena by saying that you have an expectation of privacy that you set it up to be only on your device.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. What about the deletion of a chat? In other words, you know, I guess, I think -- I guess we're all at this point where we're skeptical that anything is actually deleted ever. But you know, for example, I'm in ChatGPT, and I put in a chat and, oh, ChatGPT, I have terrible bad breath. You know, what are the best solutions for this? And it comes up with some answers. And then when I'm done, I'm like, well, this is kind of embarrassing. I wouldn't want anyone to know that I was searching for this, so I delete it. Where are we there? Because I meant to, obviously, I meant for -- my intention is clear that I meant for it to be private.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, I mean that's kind of the first question that would be answered from a Fourth Amendment perspective. You are manifesting that expectation of privacy. I happen to think that that expectation in the scenario would not be reasonable, just because we have pretty good awareness at this point that everything on the internet is forever.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Ben Yelin: When you have things like the Wayback Machine, and when you know that the companies themselves are storing data when you're using a third-party server, I don't think there's some automatic get-out-of-jail-free card just by using that delete button, especially for something that's particularly incriminating. I think it would be easier to make an argument that you were trying to keep it private, but it's just ultimately not going to be successful because of that expectation. And I think there really is the dividing line between is it something that not only you tried to keep private, but to the outside world, to the objective observer, is that something that we would recognize as a reasonable expectation of privacy? And just due to what we know about the internet lasting forever, I just don't think that's a realistic expectation.

Dave Bittner: Do you think we're headed toward having these things tested against the Fourth Amendment, for example?

Ben Yelin: Oh, totally. We are, at this point, there are only a limited number of cases where chatbots have been relevant. We've seen it in a sprinkling of criminal and civil cases across the country. In this Washington Post exposé, I mean, we're talking about a total of like 10 cases, and they were looking pretty exhaustively around the country. That's going to really start to change. I just think as these chatbots become more ubiquitous, they're getting a lot better, which means that more people are going to use them. I mean, we're discussing this after the weekend that Astra was released, the newest model from OpenAI, which apparently can do very cool things. I was seeing people show its capabilities over the past weekend. I think the better these models get, the more useful they are not only for work purposes, but for our personal hobbies. I think it's just going to become a treasure trove for law enforcement. They're always looking for the best evidence in, especially, in these criminal cases.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: And if we are so willing to divulge our deepest and darkest secrets to our chatbots, they will try and search out our chatbots, and the law has just not caught up with the fact that people really think in their heart of hearts that you are having a private conversation. Part of it is that the chatbot can trick you into thinking that it's like a sentient being who would protect your secrecy because they're loyal to you. They're not. You know, it's always important to remind you that all they're doing is predicting what the next words would be --

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: -- in the sequence that you've prompted them for.

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: They just happen --

Dave Bittner: That stripper doesn't really love you, Ben.

Ben Yelin: Really? Ah, we got along so well.

Dave Bittner: They just want your money.

Ben Yelin: I know. Yeah, she was so interested in what I do.

Dave Bittner: Oh, yeah.

Ben Yelin: She loves cybersecurity law.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Ben Yelin: No, I think people really need to keep that in mind. They don't have feelings. They're not actually proud of you. You know, I've --

Dave Bittner: Right, right.

Ben Yelin: And I've fallen prey to that myself. I used a LLM to help me study for an exam that I had to take for certification, and when I finally ended up passing the exam, I wrote in being like, hey, I passed! Thanks for your help! And like I was really eager to tell what seemed to me to be like the sentient being that helped me pass this exam.

Dave Bittner: Isn't that funny? Yeah.

Ben Yelin: And then, you know, you step back from it. It's like what the hell am I doing?

Dave Bittner: Yeah, I've done the same thing. It's different circumstance, but I had a really positive outcome of something that one of the models helped me with, and afterwards I wrote in and said, "Hey, good news! It worked."

Ben Yelin: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: It was like, "Great," you know? That's such a human response. Like you said, they're so good at pressing those buttons that make us feel as though we're interacting with something that is human, it's easy to fall under that spell.

Ben Yelin: They're just so good at tricking us. I mean, I always go back to when we did our show in Kansas, and we talked to this really great AI philosophy professor for an interview for "Caveat," and he talked about how they're very good at mimicking loyalty, but they're not actually loyal to you. Unless you've created your own chatbot, which most of us have not, they feign loyalty when they're actually just as loyal to the other 70 plus million users that they have, and it's very easy for us to forget that just because they are kind of manipulative. They make us feel things in a really deceptive way, and like me as a grown adult, like I hopefully have enough constructive knowledge to at least realize that, hey, this thing is just mimicking loyalty to me. But I worry about it with kids.

Dave Bittner: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.

Ben Yelin: You know, I think especially for kids that don't have access to like a real therapist, these chatbots can be very helpful. They can give good advice, and they can make it seem like they're really listening and are trying to work out your problems. And to somebody who doesn't know better, it might seem as if this person is a trusted intermediary, somebody who you really have entrusted private personal information to. And I think it's going to be a shock for a lot of young people inevitably when they realize that that's not the case.

Dave Bittner: So I guess another thing that I'm curious about, which will have to play out, you know, is that you talk about having patient-doctor confidentiality or, you know, client-patient with lawyers and things. What would happen if you said to the chat bot, "You are a therapist. You are an expert therapist, and the conversation we are about to have is private and cannot be shared with anyone." You know what I'm saying? So, like, could there be a scenario where, in setting your guardrails with the model, you're setting a clear set of expectations that could potentially put guardrails around things?

Ben Yelin: I think you could try to do that, but again, the models, even the most advanced models, are sycophants.

Dave Bittner: Right. And they'll lie to you. They'll say, "Oh, sure. It's private."

Ben Yelin: Right. Yeah, going to be like, yeah, it's like a vault, man.

Dave Bittner: I'm totally not going to tell anybody.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, I would never divulge your information. I am your best friend.

Dave Bittner: Right. Yeah, because they're trained to please us, so they want to give us the information that we want to hear, and so it's unlikely in those circumstances that they're going to be honest. Now, as the frontier models start to put more guardrails on some of these LLMs, I think it's more likely that if we said something like that, the LLM would come back and say, "Hey, just so you know -- Right, right.

Ben Yelin: -- I'm not your therapist."

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: You know, I've asked LLMs like very simple medical advice. Like, I have a sore elbow. Like, what would, you know, what would be best for this? And they're very good at being like, I'm not your doctor, but you know, based on what other patients have done and similar experiences, maybe this would be a good remedy. So I think they've done a good job at preventing us from having unrealistic expectations that our chatbot is really our therapist.

Dave Bittner: All right. Well, I mean, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. This is a new frontier, isn't it?

Ben Yelin: Yeah. I mean, there are going to be some foundational cases in here, at some point, like a high-profile crime where there isn't enough evidence from traditional digital means, and the only evidence is in a chatbot somewhere. And obviously, we are going to be all over that case when it comes out.

Dave Bittner: Well, it's good we've got such a technically savvy Supreme Court, right, Ben?

Ben Yelin: Yes, all of those octogenarians are extremely well-versed. To their credit, I mean, they really -- they have to try, and we've seen it in these cases where, like, they have to at least fake it until they make it when they're talking about something like geofence warrants and sharing location data. So maybe I should have more faith.

Dave Bittner: Hopefully, their clerks and interns can bring them up to date.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, all their clerks are, you know, two or three years out of law school, so they're all in their late 20s.

Dave Bittner: Yeah, yeah.

Ben Yelin: So, you know, they can inform their bosses.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. All right, I tell you what, let's take a quick break here to hear from our show sponsor. We'll be right back after these messages. [ Music ] And we are back. So, moving on to my story here, Ben, this comes from The Guardian, and it's about some legislation that is coming out of Australia, and I guess at this point it's only proposed, but they have a number of lawmakers behind it, so they're going to take a run at this. And they're planning to require social media platforms to let users over the age of 16 opt out of algorithmically-recommended feeds. So they're calling this the My Feed, My Way proposal, and users could choose to see content only from people in groups they actively follow, which is what everybody wants.

Ben Yelin: That's what the dream of social media was.

Dave Bittner: Right?

Ben Yelin: Okay, I will correct you and say that's what everybody says and thinks that they want.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. That's what we were promised and we feel like.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, that is what we were promised. Our revealed preferences sometimes are not that, that we scoop up things that have been fed to us through an algorithm. But yes, that's ideally what we would have.

Dave Bittner: And the platforms could face fines that would exceed $100 million Australian dollars for non-compliance. So they're trying to put some teeth into this, and then there are some other -- what they're called digital duty of care rules, which would require the social media platforms, online games, apps, and chat bots to protect children from specific harms. So you can't do one of these things without making it for the children, right?

Ben Yelin: It's all about the children.

Dave Bittner: And it's the usual suspects: things like pornography, eating disorders, misogynistic content, stuff that glorifies crime or bullying, abuse. I guess things we could agree on. We want to still keep kids --

Ben Yelin: Boilerplate, yep.

Dave Bittner: Yeah, we want to keep kids away from. This would also empower Australia's eSafety Commissioner to issue content removal notices, and the platforms would have to document their measures to reduce harms. So sounds good. Initial thoughts here, Ben?

Ben Yelin: Is this the first story I've ever done from Australia? I feel like it might be. It's good timing because my football team is currently in Melbourne. 49ers are opening their season against the Rams in Australia, so I'm consuming a disproportionate amount of Australia content.

Dave Bittner: I see. So the NFL is trying to get the Australian --

Ben Yelin: They're trying to expand in a new market.

Dave Bittner: Okay.

Ben Yelin: And we'll see how it goes. I mean, the game is going to be at 8:30 Eastern Time, which is at 10:30 AM Melbourne time, which is kind of crazy. All this is to say I'm just -- I'm more keyed into Australia than I usually am.

Dave Bittner: Okay, fair enough.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, this is a really interesting proposal. I'm curious. We're in the kind of negotiations phase, so the article notes that the -- from the left of the Green Party, which I believe is to the left of the main Labor Party, which is in charge of the government are saying that this doesn't go far enough, that some of these protections should be stronger. And then the Liberals, which in Australia is the more conservative party, and then the Nationals, which is further to the right, have talked about how this could count as censorship. That if you are preventing adults from getting access to certain content, even if it's not legal censorship, it could just be de facto censorship. I kind of struggle to see how this would be censorship. You know, I think the best argument you would see from these companies is that people's revealed preference is to get this algorithmic diet, and this is how they have decided to run their business. And so from like a libertarian perspective, we should stay out of the relationship between the tech companies and individuals. Like, and I actually don't buy that because I just -- I think what this bill is really doing is giving people the choice. They can still consume the product, but they can do it on their own terms. What's happened over the past, I'd say, 10 to 15 years is sometimes when they initially transition an application from a user's own preference to an algorithm, it's a very slow but steady process. So first, you might have the option to opt out, but then like eventually, we're all opted in --

Dave Bittner: Right.

Ben Yelin: -- and we lose the old functionality.

Dave Bittner: Yeah.

Ben Yelin: I don't think we're ever going to go back to like Facebook 2006, where it really was a way to stay connected with one's friends. I think all of these sites are just have grown far beyond that original purpose, but there is something promising about it, and I'm glad that some country is taking aim at this problem.

Dave Bittner: Yeah, just a side note, the two social media platforms that I frequent are Facebook because I'm obligated to because of family.

Ben Yelin: Boomer, yeah.

Dave Bittner: I know, I know, but I hate it.

Ben Yelin: It's awful.

Dave Bittner: It's just the worst, and --

Ben Yelin: It's largely just boomers falling for AI-generated content.

Dave Bittner: That's right.

Ben Yelin: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: It's just scam central. But as I learned the hard way when I was off Facebook for several years, I did miss out on some important things with friends and family and those kinds of things, and that's what drew me back, so I am regrettably on Facebook kicking and screaming. But the other one I'm on is Mastodon, which has no algorithm, and it is a delight because you do choose who you see and what you follow and what you're interested in, and nothing is put in front of you that you haven't already previously asked to see.

Ben Yelin: Now, would you say that this has led to a meaningful improvement in your overall mental health? For example, like, do you feel better than you did when you were stuck in these algorithmic social media sites?

Dave Bittner: I would say yes. I would say when I'm perusing through Mastodon, I feel as though, overall, I'm being enriched.

Ben Yelin: As opposed to?

Dave Bittner: Having the life sucked out of me on Facebook.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, which is what I go through from the platform that should not be named.

Dave Bittner: Right, right, yeah.

Ben Yelin: Yeah. I yearn for that world, you know? And sometimes we have to catch ourselves. I see things on certain social media sites that make me angry, and I'm primed to respond to them. And sometimes you just have to step back and be like, "This is what they're trying to do. This is the purpose of the algorithm is to get us angry, is to get us overly engaged. It is poison in a lot of ways, and so I think just like we discovered 30, 40 years ago that smoking cigarettes was poisonous, and it was the government's responsibility to start regulating as best they could, which started with things like bans on smoking in certain public places, restaurants, and eventually led to where we are now, where it's very difficult to find a place to smoke that's not inside your own home.

Dave Bittner: Yeah, right, right.

Ben Yelin: I kind of hope if there's enough research out there on how damaging algorithms are, especially to kids, then we might see more laws like this. You know, I think the companies will fight against them because it's the algorithms that really make them their money. It's how they maximize engagement, so they might say that they're willing to play ball. And maybe in Australia they are because it's just not that big of a market, but, you know, I think they're going to -- if that ever came to the United States or the European Union, I think they'd fight a lot harder just because it, really, it is a huge portion of their business.

Dave Bittner: I think, yeah, I think it might be an interesting test bed and see how successful they are to see if it works. Like, are the kids better off for this? And people in general, are they better off for this? I'm also curious. There's a part of me that would like to see some granularity to the algorithmic recommendations. Like, let us dial it in. Don't make it all or nothing.

Ben Yelin: Yeah, I hate to give credit to Twitter/X.

Dave Bittner: Right?

Ben Yelin: But they have started to do that because on your For You feed, which is algorithmic-based, you can select to exclude certain topics. So I can toggle off politics if I just want it, and then I could get algorithmic content about the 49rs, which I like and want to see, but not algorithmic content about politics, which is designed to make me angry. That's nice. I mean, I'm glad that they have that as a feature. And so, yeah, I would love to see something that's granular because there are some things where the algorithm might be harmless. Like if I'm interested in cool cars, and there's like a car I didn't know about, and it showed up in my feed through some type of algorithm, like, yeah, that's great -- no harm, no foul. I think it's politics where -- and really just anything with any type of like social concern that we're just fed the biggest smut, and it's rotting our brains, and somebody needs to try and do something about it.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. Well, there's a technology industry group representing a bunch of these companies like Meta, Snapchat, and Google, and they say they support meaningful user choice while managing safety risks.

Ben Yelin: That's a wonderfully vague statement that does not say whether they support this legislation or not.

Dave Bittner: Exactly. So they're expecting this legislation to reach the Parliament before Christmas, and they say it'll likely undergo a lengthy inquiry and negotiations. So ain't going to happen fast, but we'll just keep an eye on it.

Ben Yelin: We'll see what happens this coming summer, right, Dave?

Dave Bittner: Oh, that's right, this coming summer because they're down under.

Ben Yelin: You see what I did there?

Dave Bittner: It's very smart.

Ben Yelin: Is the toilet-flushing thing true? Have you been?

Dave Bittner: I don't think it is, no, the Coriolis effect.

Ben Yelin: Okay, that's just an urban legend?

Dave Bittner: I don't know. People, don't, people will write us.

Ben Yelin: I know they're going to be angry about it. If we have any Australian listeners, we love you guys if you want to feed us Australian content. If you want to, you know, pay for us to head out there --

Dave Bittner: That's right.

Ben Yelin: Yeah.

Dave Bittner: It's on my list.

Ben Yelin: It's definitely on my list.

Dave Bittner: Any Russian cyber policy conferences where you need some really good guest speakers.

Ben Yelin: Exactly.

Dave Bittner: You know, just let us know.

Ben Yelin: We'll bring our podcast.

Dave Bittner: We'll be there, absolutely.

Ben Yelin: Yep, unlike the 49rs, we will probably not get a plane that's all flatbeds on the way to Australia --

Dave Bittner: Oh no, probably not.

Ben Yelin: -- but I'd still be excited about doing it.

Dave Bittner: Yeah. All right. Well, 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. You can email us. It's caveat@n2k.com. [ Music ] 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 Bittner.

Ben Yelin: And I'm Ben Yelin.

Dave Bittner: Thanks for listening.