What is going on everybody is Stas here welcome back to another video So in this video, we're gonna be doing an overall market update looking at the Dow Jones the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq We're gonna be talking about one trade that I made today on the 28th of January in 2019 We're also gonna be looking at some other earnings reports to keep an eye on some other economic data That's coming out this week and talking about some other companies that you know Fluctuated heavily today on the 28th of January. So before we do get into this guys Let's try and get this video to 50 likes. So smash that like button I really do appreciate it if you guys do smash that like button it helps the channel grow and Without further ado, let's talk about what happened today in the stock market So the SPX guys closed the day down around $20 and 91 cents down around 0.8% The Nasdaq actually fell the most today out of the three major indices down around 90 points down around 1.3% and the Dow Jones guys closed the day down around 208 points down around 0.84% so this morning guys we saw a huge drop in the overall markets We can see the big gap down from the SPX You know the S&P 500 it closed the day on Friday at around 2664 ended up opening the day today at around 2644 sold off all the way to around 2624 so at the low of the day guys we were down around 1.5% in terms of the S&P 500 and from there You know we made higher low higher high patterns closing off the day and a nice little upswing But for those of you all out there That we're paying attention to earnings reports today. We saw that Caterpillar ticker symbol CAT they ended up missing their expectations and cutting their profits for the year of 2019 we also got news out of Nvidia that they cut down their earnings Estimates or their revenue estimates rather from 2.7 billion down to 2.2 Billion dollars right massive cut I believe it was around 18 to 20 percent cut in terms of their revenue guidance for this Upcoming year right and this ended up sending down a lot of the semiconductors. We saw AMD was down a lot today We saw micron fell down and quite a bit early on in the day But ended up closing the gap and of course in video this stock got absolutely Pummelled today guys. It was down to around a hundred and twenty four dollars after this news came out or one thirty one rather But you know it fell nearly 18 percent at one point in the day. That's how low it was. It was down 18% guys so in terms of you know Nvidia the semiconductors I do believe there's going to be more on you know downside to those particular stocks due to you know Apple cutting down their revenues and obviously Apple is one of the biggest semiconductor Users right in the world and of course, you know just in general guys semiconductors have been weak over the past couple of months This is not news to us So let's get right back here to the SPX guys to see you know What's going on on a technical basis here? So today like I said guys down around point eight percent We're still trading below that one hundred and eighty day Simple moving average here, which has been a resistance for the SPX over the past couple of months We've been talking about this and pretty much every single video that I've been making recently We can see the resistance here back in the middle of October back in the beginning of November and back in the beginning of December were three separate occasions that we got rejected by that 180 SMA this past week We got rejected on the 18th of January We had two straight days of red back last week, right? And today again guys with the gap down that we saw we saw some missed You know earnings from some big companies and video cut the guidance Obviously in video is also a very big company and this ended up sending down the markets, right markets ended up going down today Again getting rejected by that 180-day simple moving average show in terms of that resistance guys Everything is still intact that we are getting rejected by that resistance here on the 180 chart And if we're taking a look on this 20-day one-hour chart here in terms of the SPX We ended up breaking that support of the 50 SMA that I've been talking about over the past couple of days guys We saw that we topped off here at a higher high at around 2675 we pulled back to around 2621 got rejected again by that same resistance at around 2675 and we ended up breaking below the 50 SMA today Which is a very good sign that we are slowly heading down and of course a double top is a bearish Formation for an effort, you know any index any stock any ETF future, right? This is a very bearish move and the fact that we did break that does give me You know hopes that we are headed back to the $2,600 level maybe back to the $2,500 level in terms of the SPX so now that we're talking about the SPX Let's just take a look at some earnings reports to keep an eye out for the rest of this week I'm pretty much going to be talking about this briefly and every single video to keep you guys in the loop With these companies so today. These are the big ones that we saw tomorrow We have Apple AMD Verizon Pfizer eBay Wednesday We have Facebook Alibaba Microsoft Tesla PayPal McDonald's Visa Thursday We have Amazon General Electric UPS Altria those are some of the big ones and on Friday. We have Exxon Chevron Merck Honeywell Sony SIGNA those are some of the big ones on Friday so this week guys one of the biggest weeks in this quarter in terms of earnings guys the biggest companies in the entire world are Reporting so like I've been saying it's going to be a pretty Volatile week this week and this whole entire month guys because for all you that don't know March 1st is the deadline that we need to reach a trade war agreement with the president of China, right? Donald Trump and the president of China have set an agreement that they're going to find a trade war solution By March 1st is it going to happen? We don't know guys We don't know but you know there is a chance that it could happen and if it does not happen I think that's going to be very bad for the stock market We're going to be heading back down to the lows that we saw a couple weeks back if there is no agreement You know in my personal opinion, so let's check out the Dow Jones guys See what's what it's doing in terms of a technical analysis here So what unlike you know the SPX guys the Dow Jones did not double top here It hit a high of twenty four thousand seven hundred hit another high at around twenty four thousand eight hundred So the uptrend in term of this 20-day one-hour chart for the Dow Jones is technically still in Tact right we're holding this trend line here as a support level from the low of the day today at around 24,300 but we are not trading above this 50 SMA guys This is going to be a resistance that we're gonna have to break above for the Dow Jones to continue the downtrend But let's say tomorrow guys. Let's say right. We break the support at around 24,300 let's say we have another red day tomorrow Apple some of the big companies Start to report their earnings and they're not doing as great as expected Which is something that we already know since they already cut their revenue guidance. Let's say this drops this You know the overall markets again I think that this is gonna break the support and we're gonna be headed back into that downtrending You know formation that we've been in you know not really that we've been in over the past couple of weeks But you know the same kind of formation that we saw back in October through that sell-off and obviously in December guys Right when we saw a couple of weeks of selling off I think that is possible if the big companies report bad earnings That's gonna send the stock market down in my personal opinion. So on the 20 day out one hour chart That's what I'm looking at in terms of the Dow You know this five-day chart not really telling us too much here other than the fact that we held Above that twenty four thousand three hundred dollar support level and in terms of the 180 chart here just like the SPX guys We're trading below the 180 SMA which has been a resistance over the past couple of months in terms of the Dow Jones so let's take a look at the Nasdaq which is currently still falling because These are the futures guys and when we started recording this video. We were down around 89 points now We're down around 93 points. So the selling continues after the bell in terms of this Nasdaq and just like the SPX guys We see a double top formation here in terms of the Nasdaq on the 180 chart here We can see strong resistance at around sixty eight hundred and fifteen dollars. We topped off here for the higher high We did not pass it again here meaning that it's a double top bearish formation, right? And now we're testing that support at around sixty six fifty ish right right around here is a very strong support for the Nasdaq So keep an eye on that guys tomorrow. Let's say we sell off strong, right? Apple does very poorly whatever, you know the stock start to sell off. I think if we break that support Right, which is very possible if we do end up selling off tomorrow pretty heavily You know that's going to be sending us back into that sell-off stage back into that bearish pattern that we saw Back in October and of course back in December of 2018 so judging off the 20-day one-hour chart we can see exactly what I just said on a little bit of a closer basis Right, we're not trading in this channel anymore We double top that around sixty eight twenty and now we're heading down testing that support at around sixty six fifty So keep an eye on these levels guys in terms of the overall markets And of course those earnings reports that I showed you guys just a couple of minutes ago now before we do talk about What trade I made today? I just want to let you guys know some other key Economic situations economic dates that you guys want to keep an eye out for this week And I have it right here on my phone I'm gonna read off very quickly what you guys got to keep an eye out for so this Wednesday There's a monetary policy meeting are the interest rates going to hike up again like they did last month Probably not right because the Fed was talking about how they're going to ease up in 2019 in terms of raising their interest rates They said there's probably gonna be around two interest rate hikes in 2019 and there was obviously more in the year of 2018 Another thing to keep an eye out for guys in terms of the economy is the jobs report that is this Friday from the labor Labor department guys this is gonna be another huge huge economic factor to keep an eye on that can have a sway on the entire Market along with the earnings and of course what the Fed monetary policy meeting is going to you know Come to a conclusion about right those are very important things to keep an eye out for this week And now let's talk about what I personally traded today on the 28th of January in 2019 Before we take a look at some other stocks ETFs that did very well today and some others that you know gap down as well So I personally traded I'm sure you guys can guess it TV IX. This is pretty much my go-to ETF whenever the markets are Selling off pretty much right because this one tracks the SPX very closely right and whenever the SPX also known as the S&P 500 is Selling off right TV IX is going up and we can clearly see that right like we saw in the beginning of this video The S&P 500 gapped down from the close on Friday and this obviously Gapped up right we close we close at around 44 dollars. We ended up gapping up to around $47 so where did I end up trading this today guys? I personally got in on the second pullback or rather the first pullback that we see here, right? We can see you know all the way up to around 1015 the SPX was selling off pretty heavily, right? Like we can see we opened up at 2644 ended up selling off to around 2629 and typically guys not always but typically when the markets sell off very heavily in the beginning of the day, right? We typically see a little bit of a push back up right a little bit of a push back up To put some more buying power into the markets, right? This is exactly what ended up happening today And this is honestly what I was waiting for right because I didn't want to get into TV IX when the markets were already down around 1% here right at the beginning of the market because I was Anticipating a push back up because like I said guys I whenever I started the markets usually not always but usually We do see a push back up and that's exactly what we ended up getting and at this point I wanted to see if we were gonna start trending back down and exactly you know That's what ended up happening right at around 1030 is when we start to trend back down And this is when I started to scale into my TV IX position and guys like I always preach You know be patient wait for opportunities to open up to you Don't rush into a trade right at 9 30 a.m. Or whenever the market opens up in your time zone Don't rush into trades guys. You have to take calculated positions. Have your managed risk right manager risk and understand You know when a good opportunity is presenting itself to you because when you're you know beginner out there You know a lot of times you can get faked out by the stock market meaning that you think it's a good opportunity You slowly start to jump in and then you get rejected heavily and obviously it goes against you right meaning You know you have to wait for the 100% Confirmation and wait for that opportunity to open up to you right? This is what I personally did today We slowly start to sell off pretty heavily right like I said Did not want to get in due to the heavy sell off Then once we start to push back up like I anticipated all I wanted to see was a slow Slow push back down and that's what we started to get so that's what I ended up getting into TV IX at around 1030 And we could see how it correlates here on this chart right? I wanted to see if it was going to hold the 180 sma obviously when the markets are we're selling off more You know TV IX had no problem holding that 180 sma on the one day one minute Ended up getting in right around here at 48 dollars and sold off roughly at around $49.05 guys. This was a very quick trade I pretty much just wanted to fill the gap that was open here from the sell-off right meaning that The resistance when we started to sell off here was set at around 49 dollars and 50 cents We started to sell off like I said when the spx started to push back up And then when the spx started to sell down right started to push down in price that gap from TV IX that gap in TV IX Was slowly starting to fill and this is where I wanted to make my profit So from around 48 dollars guys up to around 49 dollars and five cents Let's see how much profit I grabbed from this trade So we can see, you know, I made around 2% on this trade in terms of TV IX And I always preach to keep your you know, keep your goal for the day Conservative don't try to hit that home run trade every single day The best way to trade is to keep it conservative and keep it consistent guys. The two C's conservative Consistent conservative Consistent this is the way that you build your trading account build your wealth over time If you try to hit the home run trades every single time sure you'll make 20% one day But guess what the next day if you try to hit a home run trade Let's say you're trading penny stocks or some other volatile, you know assets whatever You can lose 15% the next day without proper risk management, right? Which a lot of beginners out there don't have proper risk management That's why a lot of people end up blowing up their accounts when they're trading stocks to start out, right? So that's pretty much what I ended up doing today in terms of um, you know TV IX And I do expect more blood in the water over these next couple of days I do expect more selling meaning that I'm going to be trading TV IX Probably this entire week guys, right to be completely honest with you guys if the market does end up going away I think it's going to go every single day I'm going to be hopping in and out of TV IX Like I did here today and like I was back in december and back in october and a little bit in november When the markets were extremely volatile selling off like crazy pretty much every single day So let's talk about Very quickly some other, you know ETFs and stocks that did very well or poorly today So clearly, you know catted pillar guys like I said in the beginning of this video They've reported earnings not too great their profit guidance was cut for this year They dropped a sizable amount Let's talk about two other stocks that did very well today that I track Which are marijuana stocks guys and let me tell you something I did not think kron was going to reach these levels guys, but I was mistaken, right? I said like I said a couple of videos back I was planning on doing a put option on kron Thank the lords that I did not place that trade because I would have placed it right around here at around I think it was at like $15 and I was thinking about it We shot up all the way to nearly 19 dollars today guys in kron ticker symbol c r on And if you guys traded this one out there, congrats guys 15% day in kron Absolutely ridiculous. I know a lot of people I think there was a couple people actually in the group chat that we're talking about this one in particular and another one cgc not nearly as good of a day as kron, but still a very solid day 5 2 dollars and 29 cents on the day today in terms of cgc Keeping an eye on the 50 to 55 dollar level. I want to see honestly Is it going to break out maybe uptrend into the 60 dollar range like kron broken to new highs Is cgc going to do that same thing? Maybe possibly right? Anything is possible with these marijuana stocks. They are very very volatile, right? We all know this and let's take a look at some other ones MU ended up selling off very heavily today and filled the gap in a matter of like an hour guys Hour and a half. So if you guys were able to trade MU today on this gap fill, let me know This was a very very solid play today an AMD as well Just like in video guys this one tanked pretty heavily from 2170 all the way down to 20 dollars And it didn't end up filling the gap like MU But it ended up pushing back up to around 21 dollars So if you guys were able to catch this trade, let me know down below in the comment section And let me know about any other stocks ETFs that you guys personally traded today I would love to know about that. So before I do end off this video I want to talk about the gold futures very quickly and tell you guys Why I see strong potential in jnug moving forward So we saw the bounce on the 180s and may for the gold futures, right? And the important thing I want to talk to you guys about very quickly Is the fact that we broke this resistance at around 1300 dollars Which we've been talking about over the past couple of weeks in terms of the gold futures We broke above it. We consolidated and now we're bouncing above it treating it as a new support level So this level guys at 1300 could be the level where the gold futures end up running up to 1310 1315 1320, you know up another two three percent at least in my personal opinion And let's say we do end up doing that You know, I think jnug is going to be a fantastic play guys. I think jnug, which is the bull ETF to gold Excuse me, it's going to be a very solid play if gold ends up riding into the 1300 dollar level So in terms of profit guys, you know, we could potentially see a slight pullback Who knows but from here guys up to 1050 that offers a 4% margin In terms of um, you know jnug So, you know what I'm watching tomorrow guys very simple I'm looking to see, you know To see whether or not we're going to be trading off more selling off more Opening up that opportunity in tvix. I also want to see, you know Potentially playing short term puts against some of the larger companies that we talked about earlier on in this video Just in case they end up selling off right another great way to hedge a position Especially your long-term positions is playing put options against them, right? Meaning you'll profit on the downside if there's downside, right? And you'll be able to put money Into your long-term portfolio by buying more shares, you know Once that stock ends up falling down with the profits that you made from the put option, right? So that's one thing i'm planning on doing if the technicals are pointing to that and of course If the market perceives their earnings reports negatively, right? This is very very important I want to wait and wait till to see, you know What the companies report before placing any put option trades? So I hope you guys Enjoy this video if you did feel free to drop a like leave a comment and subscribe Follow me on instagram as well as on twitter and join our discord group chat as well as our facebook group All of those are linked down below in the description box I'll catch you guys in the next video smash that like button. Let's get this video to 50 likes I appreciate you guys to the fullest peace out


Who has a beer in their hands? Where did it come from?  How's it going? Awesome, awesome, awesome. So I'm here to tell you all a very strange story, an unbelievable tale of how beer gets made from scratch. So, let's talk about it. You tell me, what ingredients go into a beer? Water. Yeah, water, malt, something like yeast and grain. Hot, awesome. I heard yeast. I want to make a glass to put it all in once it's all done. Now of course, all of you are completely wrong. I said let's make a beer from scratch. We have to go a little bit further back. So, what's in water? Well, water is actually pretty simple, right? Water is just H2O, two hydrogens, one oxygen. What about the wheat or the hops? What goes into that? Well, they're plants, so they're all made up of DNA, right? It is a complicated molecule, but it's not that complicated. It's just hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus. Really simple. There's something important that's in both of these. That's sugar, right? The yeast needs something to act on to ferment, to make the alcohol that goes into a beer. So, sugar is not too complicated either. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen. And there's one more thing that's especially in hops that gives us the flavor that we love in a beer. It's called cumulose. Cumulose is a bit of a complicated molecule, again, but it's not that complicated. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen. You might be noticing a trend mode. What's next? Yeast. Yeast, again, while it's living, so it's got DNA, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus. Not that complicated. As part of the chemical reactions that yeast does to make us beer, it produces carbon dioxide, so carbon, oxygen. It also produces ethanol, the alcohol that lines up in our beer, carbon, hydrogen, oxygen. And it does this through the use of all of its biological reactions. They're all very complicated, but all of them involve, if you guess yet, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, plus a bit of phosphorus, say, nitrogen. All very complicated, but all of them involve, if you guess yet, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, plus a bit of phosphorus, say, nitrogen. That's it. So if you can keep and track the ingredients so far, hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus. Turns out the most complicated thing that goes into a beer is the glass itself. The glass is mostly made out of silicon dioxide with a little bit of sodium oxide, calcium oxide, aluminum oxide, and really trace amounts of these elements. We got some potassium, some magnesium, some iron, some titanium, some sulfur, and that's it. So if you're keeping track, we got 13 elements. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, all the things that go into glass. So if we're going to talk about how to make a beer from scratch, we need to figure out how to make those things into things. I wish I could tell you that this is a simple story. I wish I could say, all we do is just find a beer star, pull the tap on it, all 13 of these come out. Boom, we can make beer. But, like I said, it's a bit more complicated. It's a bit more of a beautiful story, actually. It's a bit of a hot beer with a little tail. And to tell that tail, we need to go back to the beginning. All the way back to the beginning. Well, only sort of. See, there's a problem when we start going back in time into the very early universe, how we can describe what's going on, all the physics of what's happening in the early universe, and it's the fact that we're not exactly sure. In fact, before about 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang, we have no idea what's going on. We have a couple ideas, so-called theories of everything. But they're just that. We don't really have any observational proof to tell us one theory from the next, which one's good. It's not until about maybe 10 to the minus 43 seconds after the Big Bang that we start getting into theories that we can actually validate, we can actually improve. So-called grand unified theories. Now, these theories are grand and unified in the sense that the stuff that's in a blender is grand and unified. As in it takes all the things that we might recognize, like strawberries, bananas, berries, whatever, and it blends them all up until we can't tell one from the next. It blends all of the physics that we're used to thinking of, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces. It just blends them together until we can't tell them apart. It's not until a billionth of a second after the Big Bang that we start getting things to recognize, quarks, blue-ons, electrons, photons, all the bosons that we love to talk about. And this is the stage of the universe that we like to call quark, blue-on, plasma. This isn't an actual picture of quark, blue-on, plasma. It's a picture of one of those things. We can find it at the dentist's office to keep an eye on the fact that you're at the dentist's office. But I do my best. It's not until about a billionth of a second after the Big Bang that we get things that we really start recognizing, nucleons, like protons and neutrons. In fact, we just did our very first step in making beer. We made hydrogen. These protons up here, these are just little atoms of hydrogen. Hydrogen just has one proton. We made hydrogen. Yes. Awesome. All right. So, out of a millionth of a second after the Big Bang, the universe is hot and dense. It is the ideal environment for making new things from the things that we already have. But there's one problem with the fact that the universe is super hot and super dense. That's the fact that it is bathed in this bath of hydrogen. Why is that a problem? Let's say that we have a proton and a neutron and we want them to be friends and become what we call deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron. Well, deuterium really hates gamma radiation. And so that gamma radiation hits the deuterium and splits it apart. It's not until about 10 seconds after the Big Bang that we can smoosh a proton and a neutron together and have deuterium, have that deuterium last. Once we have that deuterium, though, we can add a proton and we've made a whole new element. We've made helium-3. We can instead have a neutron and make another isotope of hydrogen. This is called tritium. We can take either one of those and add the nucleon that's missing. We can add a proton to tritium or a neutron to helium-3. We've made helium-4. Now, our helium's not getting bigger. We're really going to need that helium later. So this is a really important step. I don't know if I close my mouth. Is that better? Cool. All right. So now that we have our helium... Oops. So we've made our helium, right? We're about 1,000 seconds after the Big Bang. But there's a problem now. The universe was hot and it was dense, but it is no longer as hot and dense and so we can't do anything with that helium. It just stays there and does nothing. And so for the next 1.5 million years, we've entered the cosmic dark ages. Nothing is happening. And of course, the cosmologists know we're getting 80% of this. There is so much interesting stuff that's happening, but for me, a stellar astrophysicist, nothing interesting is happening. Until 1.5 million years later, the first stars are being invaded. So, clouds of gas, clouds of that primordial hydrogen and helium that we've already made, bits of leftover deuterium, a little bit of lithium gas produced in the process, clouds of gas start collapsing in on themselves. And as they collapse, they get denser and denser and hotter and hotter and they start fusing elements. They're stars, right? They're exactly what we think of stars, except they're a little bit different. The first stars in the universe are these behemoths. They're hundreds of times the mass of our sun.  It's gotten to a little while later that we start making things like these. This is the sun, can't you tell? Look, it's the sun. Let's take a look inside. All right, so stars like our sun like to spend most of their 10 billion or so year lifetime fusing hydrogen into helium, just like what happened during the Big Bang. I'm going to skip over all that and get to the next thing that stars do right towards the end of their lifetimes. Stars at the end of their lifetimes do what's called the triple-alpha reaction, so-called because there are three things that go into it, and all of them are called alpha particles. What's an alpha particle? It's helium-4. We made it already. Awesome, we can get triple-alpha right off the bat. Here's how it works. I take three helium atoms, I smash them together, I have carbon. It's super easy. We're all doing nuclear physics, and it's so easy. Good. So, now that we've made our carbon, let's say if the star is a little bit more massive than our sun, maybe about two times the mass of our sun. In addition to carbon, this star can also make oxygen by adding one more alpha particle, one more helium nucleus onto the nucleus. And now we have oxygen. Unfortunately, this is about as far as a low-mass star can get. They can make carbon, they can make oxygen. That's about it. Low-mass stars are boring, by the way. Alright, how do we get all of that helium and carbon and oxygen that we just made out of the star? It does us no good if you want to make beer if all these elements are locked up in the star. Well, at the end of this star's 10 billion inch year lifetime, it becomes called a red giant. It expands and it cools down. It becomes so cool that it starts to boil. That's right, stars, when they get cold, boil. How weird is that? Just like a pot of boiling water, these stars take the hot stuff that's at their center and physically bubbles it up to the surface. That means that we can take all the atoms that we've produced with our nucleosynthesis and drag them up to the surface where we can see them, where this star can now lose them via stellar wind, just like our sun's stellar wind. Cool, so now we've produced, or rather we polluted the interstellar medium with helium, with carbon, with oxygen. We have three of the things that we need to make beer. All right, like I said, low mass stars are boring. What about high mass stars? What about a star like this, that started about 10 times the mass of our sun? Well, let's take a look inside and see what it does. Now, just like our sun, it spends most of its very short time fusing hydrogen into helium. It also fuses helium into carbon. It can also make oxygen, like that low mass star. But it can go even further. It can go even further. It can go even further. It can make neon. It can make titanium and silicon and sulfur and calcium and magnesium and aluminum and all of these fun things. Just because it's a very massive star it's incredibly hot in its core so it can unlock all of these additional stages of nuclear fusion. How cool is that? Really cool. So, at the end of this process, here's what it's made. It's made this nucleus called nickel-56. It's called nickel-56 because it has 56 neutrons plus protons. There's a problem with nickel-56 though. It's really unstable. Two of those protons decay by shooting off a positron. It's a plenty of metal particles. And this turns now into iron-56. There's another problem with iron-56. Iron-56 is the end of the line for a star. There is no physical way to get energy out of an iron-56 nucleus. You can't fuse it with something else. You can't fission it and turn it into two more things. You get nothing out of this nucleus. That's a problem for a star. So, here we are. We're looking at the core of a high-match star that's about to have its worst day ever. It just ran out of iron to fuse. Rather, it just ran out of stuff to fuse into iron. This core is made out of iron. And so, because it's run out of its energy source, there is nothing preventing it from collapsing under its own weight. It collapses into a small, tiny, hard, dense nugget of matter. The outer envelope of this star collapses onto that inner core and rebounds into a supernova explosion. That's how stars, that's how massive stars, explode. This explosion, though, is so energetic. All of the stuff that this star is made is released into the interstellar medium. All of that carbon, oxygen, agnese, potassium, silicon, sulfur, all the things that go into our beer are released in this explosion. Now, I'd be sad if I didn't mention some other stuff that happens in this explosion.  Think any element in the periodic table that's heavier than iron. It's probably made in a supernova. European, supernova. Uranium, supernova. Thorium, supernova. Seriously, pick an element, it's made in a supernova. That's awesome. So, if you remain in tension, you may have noticed I missed one crucial ingredient in beer. That's nitrogen. The nitrogen that goes into DNA, nitrogen that at least uses to produce ethanol in our beer, it's really hard to make nitrogen. It's really, really hard to make nitrogen. You can sort of make some of it in supernova explosions. You can make some of it at the very end of a low mass star's lifetime, which you don't make enough. The only way to produce nitrogen that you need is via this thing called the Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen, or CNO, cycle. Turns out this is the way that low mass stars and high mass stars use to produce helium out of hydrogen. So here's how it works. I have some hydrogen. It uses these three nuclei, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen. It bounces around and uses them as catalysts to produce helium. It's super cool. No carbon, nitrogen, or oxygen is made in this process. It just uses these as a cycle to produce helium. It's super neat, right? So, the carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen cycle kind of works like a NASCAR race where all the cars are going around the track listening, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen. And they like to take a pit stop here and there. Turns out that the worst pit stop that they take is at nitrogen. It takes them a really long time to get through the stop that involves nitrogen. And just like a racer on a track, if I have something that's stopping the race at one point, all the cars are going to build up at that one point on the track. Same thing happens with nitrogen. Because it takes so long for this step that involves nitrogen to happen, the star starts building up nitrogen. Here's what I mean. Here is the abundance, the cosmic abundance, of nitrogen compared to carbon. Now, ever in the universe before the CNO cycle happens, there's about maybe five, four or five carbon atoms for every nitrogen atom. Inside stars that are doing the CNO cycle, here's what happens. There's more than 100 times the amount of nitrogen in a star that's doing the CNO cycle than there is the carbon in that star. So via this process of converting hydrogen in the helium, we actually make the nitrogen to five carbon atoms. All right, cool. So we've made all 13 ingredients of our beer. We've made our hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and phosphorus that we need to make beer itself. And we've made all the other atoms that we need to make F-racks. So there was a bit of milk from this beer star, right? It wasn't just one star, but it was the whole conglomerated effort of massive stars and low-mass stars that produce all these other elements. With a little bit of help from some big, big beer nucleus synthesis which made our hydrogen in the first place. All right, let's get the beer from the stars into our glasses. So this right here is an interstellar cloud of gas and dust. This has all the things we need to make beer. Turns out this cloud is really cold. In fact, it's so cold it's a great place to do some chemistry. One of the easiest things to make in these clouds is water. We look at interstellar states and find water. If we look at these clouds a little bit further, we can actually start seeing the very beginnings of stars. We see proto stars. And if we look at some of these proto stars, and these are all real images, we can see what looks like disks of dark gas and dust that are orbiting these stars. These disks are also the perfect place for chemistry. In fact, a disk, much like these ones that formed around our sun as it was moving, formed minerals like silicates, carbonates, things that we need to make glass. This right here, ooh, now that this is totally this is totally a protective cloud. So this is a picture of an actual disk around a star taken by the Alma telescope. These gaps in the disk here are real. Parts of this disk are a little bit more massive than others. They were gravitationally unstable. They collapsed down to become planets. Or rather, they collapsed down to become small little chunks of things that started creating more and more matter. I already gave away the ending. They are becoming planets. Right here in this gap of stuff are planets that are carving out material from this disk of gas and dust. One of these planets might actually grow, or might actually manage to hold on to an atmosphere. It might have active volcanism going on on the surface. This really harsh environment sounds terrible to me and I, but it's actually a really good place for very, very, very early life. Early life that might one day evolve to become something that we see as yeast. Wait a couple billion years, right? Not that option. Maybe this planet has oceans, forests, deserts, jungle, tundra, an atmosphere, weather, volcanism, all the things we need for complicated life and not so complicated life too.  Let's take that leaf, let's mash it up and soak it in water for a little bit. Let's put some hops in, let's expose it to yeast. Let all this sit in a barrel for a little while. Let the yeast do its magic. Look at that. We've made beer. Don't applaud me. Really what we should be doing is raising our glass. So please, everyone join me in a toast. I don't have beer. You're done. I don't have beer. So, what? All right. So, please join me in thanking the universe for this lovely stuff that's in your glass. Thanks for listening. I'll take your questions and you take this beer too. Give it back. Sorry, I can't do it. Also, if you still have trivia, please bring those and turn those in. Cool. So, the question was, can I repeat the mass range of stars that participate in the carbon nitrogen-oxygen cycle? So, it turns out there's another way to make helium out of hydrogen. You might think a good way to make helium out of hydrogen is just to smash the two together, or smash a bunch of hydrogen together to make helium. That's actually an okay way to do it. Very low-mass stars do do that. But as stars get more and more massive, the efficiency of the CNO cycle ends up going up and up and up. The point of the transition between where the CNO cycle is more efficient than the so-called heat chain which is smashing protons together to make helium. That's right around our sun. It turns out our sun does about 10% of its fusion via the PPP chain and about 90% of its fusion via the CNO cycle. So, our sun is the transition. Everything more massive than our sun does the CNO cycle. All right. Any other questions? All right. Thank you all so much. Don't forget to review trivia and thank the universe for the stuff in your glass.


And now for your U.S. Army Europe spotlight. Some soldiers will go the extra distance to distinguish themselves. These soldiers, NCOs and junior officers compete for just that in this year's U.S. Army Europe's best warrior competition. From obstacle courses to weapons qualification, these soldiers are pushing their limits as fit, disciplined and well-trained professionals. It takes pride, one of yourself. It takes the will to win, never to quit. It takes a drive from inside. It's not something you can really write down or not something you can buy in a store. It's what do you have inside of you, what drives you. Winners for the Soldier and NCO division will continue on to compete at the Department of the Army level in Fort Lee, Virginia. For more information go to eur.army.mil.


Well, I'm really pleased that we're going to have this presentation this evening. It's the result of work that's being done as part of the InterPARES Trust multinational interdisciplinary research project, which explores issues concerning digital records and data entrusted to the internet. Funding is provided through a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Partnership. And the director of the overall grant is Dr. Luciana Durante from the School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies at UBC. The project that our students have been working on is part of social media and trust in government. It's one of the projects that I'm leading as part of this multiple I trust project collaborative to give you some type of perspective. On the scope of the endeavor, there are more than 70 international partners all around the world. The iSchool at SJSU is just one of them. The students you're going to hear from today are just two researchers out of more than 300 that have contributed to this project worldwide so far. The online presentation that you'll hear today discusses the federal government's use of social media and the balance between freedom of information and privacy. It will closely examine the social media platforms employed by federal governments of five countries along with a discussion of associated policies, reasons, and issues. The guest speakers will cover the freedom of information acts, privacy laws, regulations, and policies implemented within these five countries. Our presenters this evening are Kristin Henson and Jamie Dobrits. Kristin is a student in the Master of Archives and Records Administration degree program. She lives in Spokane, Washington, where she works as a health records technician for a local community health association. Jamie Dobrits is finishing her last semester in the Master of Archives and Records Administration degree program. She recently worked as a records coordinator for a non-profit health plan service provider, and she aspires to pursue a career in records management after graduation. Right now, I'm going to turn the mic over to Kristin, who will address the topic of freedom of information. Kristin, take it away. Thank you, everybody, for coming this evening. I'm going to start off by discussing social media. So, in this presentation, we examine how social media is used by federal level government agencies and politicians within five countries. In addition to this, we will examine how freedom of information and privacy laws behave and how social media is affected by them. The five countries we're looking at are the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Let's start by defining social media. A definition that seemed most encompassing was one by Cole Miller et al. stating that social media is a set of technologies that allow for interpersonal communication and collaboration. These being made up of applications that interactively connect people and information and allow for the creation and exchange of the user-generated content. Social media use is growing within government agencies and politicians, and an engagement tool that allows a new level of interaction with federal government has not been the norm before now. On this point, Criotto et al. discussed that the expected social media applications in government may differ in type and nature, but are including and not limited to social networking, micro-blogging, multimedia sharing, virtual world, mash-up and open data, questioning tools, crowd sourcing, collaboration tools, tagging, and content syndication, all of which are presented with examples on the slide here. Even with such a wide variety of tools available, the most popular platforms unsurprisingly include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, and blogs. Why social media is used by government agencies? Through review of the literature, it is apparent that there are four prime reasons that illustrate how government agencies and politicians use social media. These reasons include communication of issues, dissemination of information, engagement of citizens and constituents, and to make politicians or the face of a government agency more personable. As one of the four main reasons that government agencies and political figures use social media is communication of opinions and positions about various issues. Social media is a format that has shown to be ideal to quickly and easily express these positions and thoughts on a wide range of issues in the political landscape. As reflected in Brett Schneider and Margole's discussion of the role of social media in the 2009 Open Government Initiative memo, the goal is to increase government's visibility by sharing data and insights into decision-making processes in order to become more transparent and to become more engaging and participatory by reaching previously underrepresented segments of the population and to include all stakeholders in collaborative processes. While the ease reflected in this statement is a major factor, this is not the only consideration in the use of social media for communication of issues. Social media is also a quick means of communication for government agencies and politicians, allowing for timely communication on many aspects, moving more quickly than previous means of communication. As Cole Miller at all point out, it is clear that social media is a widespread, valuable communication platform that can provide just in time critical information quickly to a wide and global audience. Social media is on everyone's phone and anyone can quickly shoot off a tweet or Facebook status update, including government agencies and politicians. In addition, there is plenty of information that is disseminated by politicians and government agencies that does not necessarily involve discussion. As Levine notes, social media used by government agencies and politicians has the goal of making public data easy to find, easy to understand, and easy to use. Today, it is important for citizens and constituents to be able to gain information via social media. As a communication tool, social media can be utilized to make a politician or face of a government agency relatable to constituents, putting a face to a name or putting forward a representation of the organization as a whole. Namika et al discussed the subject stating that contemporary politicians are under increasing pressure to avoid display of superiority and present themselves as a vulnerable, responsive, and connected to ordinary citizens. This discussion illustrates the strategic advantage and the cultural pressures that have become influencing factors on politicians and government agencies to bring more of their personal lives into their social media posts in order to make them more relatable. All of the previous reasons come together as aspects of engagement of citizens and constituents, which is the ultimate reason for the use of social media by politicians and government agencies. As Inescu states, social media has significant potential for promoting interactions between government and citizens, fostering new depths of government-citizen interactions. The pressure to use social media comes as much from government want as from citizen and constituent expectation, as noted by Porto et al, when they state that social media technologies have already taken an important place among means of communication between government and members of the public. And our poise to continue to take on greater prominence as a mechanism of government information and services as more content moves on to these platforms and more users come to expect the use of social media as a primary method to interact with government. This all illustrates the central point that government agencies and politicians use social media as a means to engage constituents or citizens to communicate with them, inform them, and to make the politicians relatable. Issues that arise from social media used by government agencies. Balancing against the many reasons as to why social media is used by politicians and government agencies, there are also reasons that its use can be a drawback. These reasons include blurring the line between public and private lives and the fact that social media does not reach all constituents. As discussed previously, social media can be a means of relating for politicians and faces of government agencies. We'll just can add them in winning votes and effectively communicating with constituents. On the other hand, social media is increasingly blurring the line between public and private lives. Meninga et al very clearly delineate the issues here in their statement that social media renders politicians vulnerable to criticism on at least two different fronts. Firstly, if they do not use it or if they do not embrace its interactive and informal potential or do not disclose aspects of their private lives, they risk being seen as out of touch in a loop. Ultimately, if they do use it, they risk undermining their integrity and authority by being too intimate and over-sharing. There is a point in line between sharing too much as a political or government figure and sharing too little. Political or government figures must find and maintain the line to separate the cold and uninteresting personality from an unprofessional over-sharing personality when they are using social media. Another issue that arises is knowing when social media will be the most effective. Not all constituents are reached by the use of social media. Bertot et al state that for government use of social media to increase access to government information and services and to successfully facilitate civic participation, members of the public must be able to access and use social media technology. Ultimately, the use of social media is only an effective communication tool in communities that have a higher level of internet access and thus access to social media platforms. So this is not to say that social media is not an effective tool to use as Marvall points out. While not all constituents are reachable on Twitter, it became clear in their interviews that the majority of government members who are using Twitter understand that a part of their constituents are reachable through this medium who are otherwise not involved in the democratic process. Social media may not be a communication tool that is accessible to everyone, but for those who are reachable via social media, this may be the only way to communicate with them. Policies and government use of social media. With the rise of social media use, many governments have implemented policies to govern best practices. Within the five countries we looked at, there seems to be two approaches. That scene in the United States, which is to have no central policy with departments deciding for themselves, or that scene in the other four countries where there is an overarching policy or set of policies. Within the four countries with the central policy or set of policies, there is a further split between highly controlled government messages as seen in Canada and Australia and the more loose control of the government message as seen in the United Kingdom than in New Zealand. The countries with the loser control on the government message seem to believe that the core of social media is quick response and engagement while the others seem to see social media much more as a means of disseminating official messages. In the United States, while social media use is growing, there is a lack of cohesive policy governing its use. Policies are departmental and those currently in place are outdated, often with no mention of social media specifically. An example of this discussed by Margole is that all types of communication between members of Congress and the public are regulated by the shrinking rules, which were designed in 1789 to provide guidance on how physical mailings has to be designed, printed and mailed at a taxpayer dispense. While this is an extreme example, it does illustrate how policies used to regulate social media usage in the United States government typically have been written before social media existed. Controlling or simply adhering to an official message is an important part of utilizing social media for government agencies and politicians. One which necessitates that there be some sort of policy developed that allows for cohesive controls that are not currently in place. This hodgepodge of departmental policies that may or may not be adequate leads the federal level of the United States government open to unnecessary risks when it comes to the utilization of social media. The situation in Canada is very different from that in the United States. There are four beneficial documents that outline the policies associated with government social media usage. The four policies are section 18 of the communications policy, the standard on social media account management, the policy on a flexible network in device use, and the guidelines for external use of Web 2.0. Within these policies is an acknowledgement of social media as an important communication tool, but they also seek to set the rules, boundaries, and limitations on what the government feels is appropriate use of social media for its employees and public figures. As Group states, the Canadian rules support the use of social media by public servants, but in relatively risk-averse ways. There is actual effort to enact control and consistency over any message released by politicians and government agencies before any posts are made. In the United Kingdom, there is a single document used as a policy for social media usage called the Social Media Guidance for Civil Servants. Much like the Canadian perspective, there is an emphasis on the popularity and usefulness of social media as a communication tool. So the policy is quite enthusiastic for the use of social media by government agencies and politicians. The reality, as Mern's at all point out, is that the speed of adoption is widely criticized, as is the slow pace of service innovation, which is described as lagging the commercial sector and failing to meet citizen expectations. This leads to a want to promote social media use in the government. A big difference between Canada and the United Kingdom in their policy is that the United Kingdom exercises much less of the control in hand on the messages put out. There is little put in the way of using social media beyond the gentle reminders of the permanence of the internet and big expectations of impartiality to control the message of the United Kingdom government on social media. The loosening control makes social media use easier for government agencies and politicians to promote. In Australia, similar to the United Kingdom, there is one document that guides social media usage for government agencies and politicians called the Circular 2012-1, Revisions to Commission Guidance on Making Comment and Participation Online. While this policy does inherently understand that social media is an effective communication tool very similar to the Canadian method, there is more of an emphasis on controlling the message before it goes out. As Group put it, the opportunities presented by social media have changed the public administration playing field while also increasing the underlying risks that public servants take when going public. The emphasis in Australia is quite similar to that in Canada with a more controlled and cohesive government message. New Zealand has a series of policies and documents all under the social media and government heading that lay out a variety of policies for social media usage. Very similarly to the United Kingdom, New Zealand's government recognizes the need for quick publishing on the social media platforms to support the dialogue that makes it so appealing to citizens. This is why, as Group points out, that in New Zealand, much like in the United Kingdom, trusted public servants are given authorization to independently exercise their judgment and publish as and when they deem appropriate. This listing of a controlled message allows for swifter response and more engaging dialogue. But even though there is loosening of control, there are still guidelines that government agencies and politicians are expected to adhere to in publishing social media. Overall, the much more open policy than the one seen in Australia and Canada. Now looking at Freedom of Information Acts, what is Freedom of Information? Freedom of Information is an important key to support citizen knowledge and therefore democratic processes. Wallby and Larson hit the nail on the head when they define Freedom of Information in the following manner. The premise or promise of Freedom of Information law is that citizens can request information that has not previously been made a matter of public record and that requests of this kind facilitate information access in a participatory and democratic manner and reinforce government accountability. Ultimately, Freedom of Information Acts are meant to support democratic processes within a government through access to information and transparency which promote accountability and decrease corruption. We have examined the Freedom of Information Acts in five countries, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. All of these countries are ones in which democracy is a core concept within their government. Freedom of Information Acts are means used to encourage transparency and accountability in these governments to support democratic processes. Within these five countries, there is about a 40-year stand of when the Freedom of Information Acts were passed. The Freedom of Information Act was enacted in the United States in 1966. Canada passed their Access to Information Act in 1982 with it going into effect in 1983. Canada's law was passed as part of what Hayland where they called a second wave of Freedom of Information Acts passed in the early 1980s along with Australia's Freedom of Information Act and New Zealand's Official Information Act, both of which were also passed in 1982. Surprisingly, the United Kingdom was the last of the countries to pass their Freedom of Information Act, passing it in 2000 and implementing it in 2005, significantly later than many other similar countries. So these laws are meant to support the democratic processes in their government. After the Freedom of Information Acts were passed in Australia and Canada, there were some resistance seen from the government. Hayland where they found that the Canadian Freedom of Information Regime was hampered by a negative reaction following a series of early controversies resulting from Freedom of Information Requests. The Australian Acts saw initial optimism and strong support which ultimately gave way after three years to a series of revisions. So the lack of support was not the case across the board. New Zealand does not explain any of us. As Hayland where they stated, New Zealand's Official Information Act is widely regarded as a model for how progressive access to information regimes should work. Freedom of Information Acts are seen as a means of improving the transparency and accountability, though this is also often balanced by an apprehension and lack of support by the government's government to make a more transparent. The current themes for Freedom of Information. Those are a wide range in the timing of the enactment of these Freedom of Information Acts. There are many aspects both negative and positive that are recurrent through all of the countries including transparency, access to information, accountability, reluctance towards Freedom of Information, corruption and behaviors of hiding information from Freedom of Information Acts. One of the biggest themes in Freedom of Information is that they are intended to make governments more transparent, which is a cornerstone to ensuring democracy within the country. Veal at all states that when a government is transparent its citizens and other observers can see it's inner working, its processes, procedures, budgets, priorities and plans. Transparency is supported by technology as Veal at all states. The use of technology in government represents an important tool that can potentially improve citizen perceptions about transparency and efficiency. Technology, such as social media usage, helps promote transparency while transparency helps support democratic systems. Transparency is only achievable if access to information is granted. It is through Freedom of Information Acts that you gained information needed to achieve transparency. As Levine stated, Freedom of Information represents the current system used to access the government's Metaphysical Source Code or data of and about government and its activities. Access to that source code is necessary to support transparency. Transparency and access to information are means to support government accountability. Celand and Bentley state clearly that the worldwide access to information laws and regimes reflects an emerging concern with participation and accountability in the political and economic development sphere. It is beyond question that the most basic lever that citizens have in holding their state to account in terms of the use of the public purse and policies pertaining to rights and development. It is the power to demand information about how decisions are made. The access that transparency promotes allows for the average citizen to understand the how and the why of decisions made so that through the democratic processes within their government, they can make their approval or disapproval known. According to Worthy, this is the reality of how Freedom of Information is being used as means of gathering information in a picture-building way rather than to uncover smoking guns. Getting access to the inner working of how the government is run is not meant to be anything more than a check on those in public office by the people whom they are meant to serve. Within all five governments, there is a noted reluctance and hesitation towards Freedom of Information Act. Well, the Freedom of Information Act has been in place for over 40 years at this point in the U.S. The being that says the public rightly expects more from the government, but the government remains stuck in antiquated ways of thinking about information sharing. And that the challenge of Freedom of Information, however, is that the data and information subject to Freedom of Information requests are by definition often the most politically sensitive and or controversial. Otherwise, this information would not need to be requested and or litigated once a denial of request was issued. This combination of reluctance towards allowing access and staunch adherence to how things have been done in the past is an attitude seen in many of the five governments. Is this reluctance of use and support for the Freedom of Information Act that leads to behaviors of hiding information from Freedom of Information requests and fosters corrupt actions within the government? Accountability supported by access to information and transparency is meant as a means to combat corruption within a government. If politicians and government agencies must be held accountable to the people of their country, they are less likely to get away with corrupt behaviors. And we'll at all point out, transparency is viewed as a step in the right direction since it leads to a healthier economy through eliminating corruption. While they make a great point here, corruption can never be fully eliminated, though it can be actively decreased in battles, especially using current technologies such as social media. Much like with these technologies, any change to the way things have been done for decades will come across some level of reluctance. This reluctance can lead to behaviors that allow government agencies and politicians to change how they do things in order to hide information. As noted by Walde and Larson, the critics of the principle of Freedom of Information contends that access laws lead to fishbowl cultures in government where public servants are reluctant to commit frank advice to paper for fear of creating a textual trail that could embarrass officials. As the base in local science suggests, government employees in various countries started to scale back their production of certain kinds of text when Freedom of Information legislation was adopted. While access to information and transparency support the accountability that is necessary to combat corrupt behaviors within government, not every action that appears evasionary should be seen as corrupt or even intentional. When judging if an action is intended to hide information, it must be weighed against what it takes to fulfill all Freedom of Information requests. Some actions may be outright evasionary, while others are due to lack of resources or infrastructure to accommodate these requests. How is social media use affected by freedom of information? Social media allows for immediate access to information from a variety of sources, including politicians and government agencies. As Brett Schneider and Margole put it, social media at this early stage presents an opportunity to directly interact with audiences and for government to provide an innovative channel for representation, information dissemination and education that a traditional static website cannot provide. Interactions on social media channels are bidirectional allowing for frequent back and forth communication between agency representatives and the public. These bidirectional communication can easily support aspects of Freedom of Information acts. Information from social media accounts can be easily accessed, while social media also makes an ideal tool to gain access to a government agency or politician to ask for information not already available. These processes can support accountability, though they are still subject to the reluctance and behaviors of hiding information that any other technology or means of communication used by government agencies experience. Perhaps even more so in some cases, since social media is such a public forum, not only affecting access to information, but privacy as well. And here I will hand Mike over to Jamie as she discusses privacy. Okay, what does privacy mean? Privacy has been a concern for people for centuries. As John and Peter state, although interest in what may be called privacy dates back to ancient times, we can see the privacy as a distinctly modern right that has taken its present shape alongside rights to education and healthcare over the 20th century. Its emergence as modern right is generally associated with the 1890 publication of Warren and Brandis' seminal article, The Right to Privacy. Remarch has been sparked by the intrusion of journalists into the private lives of public figures. However, privacy today has numerous meanings and applications outside the physical sphere, moving right into the digital sphere. Defining privacy and including it as part of human rights became all the more important as computer use became a daily occurrence in most of our lives. As personal computer use became commonplace at work and in the home during the latter part of the 20th century, information privacy hit its stride. The internet changed the way people think about privacy and how we perceive it as protected. Social media and its rise to popularity once again has changed the way people think about privacy. Contextually, privacy while using social media means different things to individuals throughout the world. Privacy greatly differs between individuals, borders, age groups, and access to information. Milken and Dillard explained that four dimensions of privacy exist. Privacy of a person, behavior privacy, communication privacy, and personal data privacy. Privacy is a complex, multifaceted, and changing concept, especially when applied to digital media, even more so social media. An important factor in privacy and social media is the expectation of privacy while using these platforms. Studies have shown time and again that the expectation of privacy protections by the platform and governing agencies are not matching up across the globe. In examining the privacy-protecting laws, acts and amendments throughout the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, it becomes apparent that privacy is not an easy concept to define, let alone guaranteed to protect. Where is privacy today? Individuals are worried about their privacy. As Frantaske states in a 2013 Q-research survey, reported that a majority of Americans worry about their privacy. About 86% took some steps to remove their digital footprint, but these efforts are often insufficient because companies have multiple ways to monitor people, some of which are very hard to evade. It is not just a concern within the United States, but in other countries as well. Without a centralized framework concerning privacy on the Internet, some individuals feel vulnerable about their information and data privacy. Several countries have addressed privacy concerns for decades by instituting privacy acts or laws at the federal level to reassure their citizens, to create guidelines for businesses, as well as hold both businesses and individuals accountable. If they should violate these privacy acts or laws. Other countries, however, rely on a mishmash of laws, acts, and amendments at this level, preferring to leave social media privacy as a concern for the lower levels of government through litigation and third party privacy policies. The privacy acts, laws, and amendments are in place within the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand will be examined. The chart reveals that of the five countries selected for privacy research, the United States is the only country without a blanket federal level privacy act or law in place to cover all privacy issues. So I'll focus on how the U.S. handles privacy first. Privacy concerns in the U.S. were not always part of a guarantee protection, as Cuban and Silva explained. It is just within the last 50 years that the right to privacy has been being protectable under the United States Constitution and has subsequently been explicitly written into several states' constitution. The United States Supreme Court has determined that the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable government searches and seizures should be distinguished from other privacy rights. Notably, the court determined that other privacy rights should be left to the individual states to protect. The protection of a person's general right to privacy, his right to be left alone by other people, is like the protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the laws of the individual states. The U.S. only have federal level privacy laws in acts in place for specific industry sectors such as for the health care sector. However, a federal level data privacy act is missing to cover transactions dealing specifically with the internet and social media privacy. And leaving social media privacy up to individual states rather than instituting a federal level privacy act, many court proceedings occur within the U.S., leading to the reliance on tort law and even third party user agreements as the primary source when dealing with social media privacy concerns, especially online. Where does this leave Americans when dealing with legal proceedings regarding a possible breach of privacy by individuals, companies, or the government while using social media? As Clay Poole explained, the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general have been the traditional protectors of online privacy for lightly regulated industries like social media. But through much of the development of social media and the socially oriented internet sites, these enforcement agencies have tended only to enforce the privacy policies that a site chooses to publicize. Clay Poole also points out most personal data about people, their activities, and their transactions. It seems that a social media site would not be regulated for use or abuse of this data, only for misrepresenting what data was collected and how such data was used. Deep intrusions of privacy may be allowed as long as the site doesn't directly misrepresent what it is doing. With the limited resources of the FTC and reliance upon third party privacy policy, privacy within the U.S. is complex and oftentimes left to individual states to handle view of their own policies, laws, acts, and state constitutions. As noted by Clay Poole in Europe and Canada and other countries across the world, protection of each citizen's private information is considered to be a human right, secured by a statute and enforced by government and privacy causes of action. In the United States, by contrast, only certain classes of information are protected under federal law, financial transactions, health care transactions, and information regarding children under the age of 13. While nearly all other data is considered to be fair game for any business or government agency that chooses to collect, store, and use the information. The privacy acts and laws present in other countries define and protect citizen privacy at the federal level, which contrasts sharply with the patchwork of privacy laws instituted and executed at varying levels of government within the United States. The remaining four countries examined, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, has been dealing with privacy concerns for decades by instituting privacy laws or acts at the federal level to reassure their citizens to create guidelines for businesses as well as hold businesses and individuals accountable if they should violate these privacy acts or laws. As you can see from the chart, these countries have made an effort to define and protect their citizens' privacy for decades. Many of these acts and laws were instituted during the personal computer boom in the 1980s and 90s. However, the internet was still in its infancy at the time and social media still would not exist until the early 2000s, leaving privacy laws regarding to these technologies unaddressed within the currency privacy acts and laws. The most comprehensive of privacy laws, like the Privacy Act of 1988 in Australia, which regulates how personal information of their citizens is handled and public, private, nonprofit, health service providers and businesses handle use and manage personal information, as well as including 13 Australian privacy principles. These principles cover privacy transparency, management, collection, use, accuracy, storage, security, and access to the acts are still lacking. Even with the Privacy Act's inclusion as well as well-defined privacy principles, there is no mention of the internet, social media, or data privacy. As with most of the Privacy Act, they were written before the advent of the internet or the applications it holds. With privacy laws not addressing the internet and social media, some citizens are growing more concerned about their privacy online. Results from a 2013 longitude mill study of attitudes towards privacy conducted by the Australian Information Commissioners Office notes that 48% of Australian citizens think online services, including social media, pose the greatest risk to privacy. Another study completed in 2014 by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner within New Zealand revealed that nearly half of all New Zealanders say they are more concerned about privacy issues over the last few years than they were previously. With almost half the population of Australia and New Zealand citing social media privacy as a concern, it seems even with Privacy Act in place, there is still public concern regarding privacy. But it is not just within Australia and New Zealand where the Privacy Acts are falling behind the technology that affects citizen privacy. So what do the Privacy Act's laws and amendments define? The varying Privacy Act's laws define privacy, human rights, citizen rights, and freedoms granted to the citizens within their prospective countries. They also explore to find the varying litigation rights and court interpretation of the Privacy Acts or laws. Some of the Privacy Acts define fines and punitive damages if privacy is violated. Even with the most comprehensive of Privacy Acts, there are crucial topics regarding today's privacy concerns missing from these documents. One of the most notable missing items within the Privacy Acts or laws is an inclusive definition of privacy with the possibility for universal application to privacy. Some of the Privacy Acts and laws also lack the use of modern terminology to address the internet and social media. Another missing element within the laws and acts is the use of terminology which lends itself to deep understanding by citizens of their rights within their country. Does the expectation of privacy live up to the reality? The preconceived notion of privacy and the protections granted by federal level legislation greatly varies throughout the world. Individuals have expectations of privacy and privacy protections that may or may not exist well in their homes, at work, online, especially when on social media. The alignment of what is expected and what exists often times surprises individuals who expect governmental privacy laws, acts or amendments to fully protect their idea of privacy and to intervene on their behalf if their privacy has been violated by an individual, business, organization or government. Preconceived threats to privacy today usually stems from internet usage. As Zhu and Chen explain, privacy concerns refers to the user's concern about threats to their privacy online. This construct reflects user's response to the preconceived possibility of privacy leak and the expected loss induced by the abuse of privacy. An abuse of privacy online may arise from many different areas, including peer privacy violations, unintended audiences including friends, families, or colleagues, and even friends of friends receiving information that was not intended for them. Provider privacy violations, for example, Google sharing search histories to third parties for big data mining or authority privacy violations, such as a police department collecting information on a group of individuals through a data stream while looking for a single person. As Zavitaro and Simonelli explain, privacy refers to online user's perception of privacy psychologically, mentally, culturally, or conditionally rather than the actual security. Generally speaking, online users perceive different communication media with different levels of privacy in different circumstances. Individuals build their privacy expectations in many ways, including culture, age, experience, audience, location, knowledge of the law, and platform. In many cases, situational privacy is the most important factor in building privacy expectations. As Martin explains, individuals, employees, users, and consumers make judgments about privacy expectations and violations, regardless of the notice and choice policy in many situations. The preconceived notion and expected level of privacy oftentimes overrule the explicit privacy warnings before using an application online. Individuals make assumptions about their privacy today that possibly contrasts with the historical notion of privacy. As Martin explains, in privacy scholarship, the access view of privacy suggests that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy, so long as they and their information are inaccessible or hidden. Online, the access view would categorize the act of sharing information is necessarily giving up any expectation of privacy. When individuals use a phone, watch a basketball game, or click like, individuals are seen as not having privacy expectations because all of the information was accessible. Some social media users have lowered their expectations of privacy since they understand the information shared on these platforms have the possibility to be disseminated to others outside their control. While some individuals believe they no longer control their privacy, there are others who expect a level of information privacy and control while online. As you and Chen mentioned, factors that determine the perception people have of information control relate to manners in which the website collects, stores, and utilizes user personal information. These factors can be reduced to four points. The presence of a privacy policy on the online site, knowing that information is being collected, voluntary or involuntary submission of the personal information in question, and the openness of the type of information usage by online organizations. These situational factors change the expectation of privacy while on social media. These users view their privacy as a fluid concept that is changeable. In today's environment where sharing private information is commonplace, Wheatley explains privacy concerns have shifted from wanting to be left alone to wanting to fill that personal information is secure in the hands of companies who hold it. There is a need for legislation that can adequately address the intricacies of how consumers expect their information to be handled. Individuals still more secure in their online transactions and interactions knowing the information they share will not be used maliciously or be used in any way. Steinbart at all explained how the right to be forgotten is an emergency concept, emerging concept that refers to an individual's ability to have data collected about themselves permanently deleted or destroyed the final stage of the information cycle. Individuals in the EU now have the right to be forgotten, but how far the purchase information goes is still up for debate since this law is still rather new. Steinbart at all expressed it is not surprising that there is some evidence that the European consumers request to apply to the EU's recently established right to be forgotten to have Googled the list search engine results focused on some types of information more than others. However, there are many other relevant forms of information that consumers may want deleted besides which Google indexes such as private social media posts restricted to friends, Internet of Things data and mobile device sensory data. Privacy settings on social media do not automatically mean information shared while an account is set to private equates to a valid privacy protection. As DeNardis and Hackel explained, expansion from privacy 1.0 to privacy 2.0, the formerly primarily concerned with the data collection technologies of government and private institutions and the latter concerned with the privacy issues arising out of peer to peer interactions. Social media platforms like YouTube have facilitated not only the sharing of one's personal information, but the information about one's peers making involuntary public cells of all. The future of privacy is social media and the government. Social media has become a vital tool in connecting individuals with one another bridging gaps between government entities, connecting businesses with consumers and serving as an information outlet. It is unlikely that social media will suddenly die off or individuals will go against their basic human needs for connection, but social media may further develop and change as time passes, as will our privacy expectations. Privacy expectations have changed over time and will continue to do so to meet the needs of the society we live in today. Today, there are varying groups that stand in opposition to one another concerning privacy, especially on the Internet and on social media. There are groups that advocate for more information privacy, just as others strongly stand in opposition by advocating for more security in exchange for giving up privacy rights. Which way privacy will go in the future is still anyone's guess, but change is inevitable. Another area where change seems to be unavoidable is related to social media regulation and data mining. As lately expressed, any company that makes a profit from the collection of personally identifiable information should be tasked with proper use, storage and disposal of that information. New federal privacy legislation could accomplish this task by requiring companies to maintain adequate standards to safeguard this information, utilizing the principles described above, with a power given to the private plaintiffs to enforce those principles if they are violated. Requiring social media platforms to conform to privacy legislation in lieu of individual organizational privacy policy seems very likely as more governments find social media platforms lacking adequate privacy protections for their government, citizens and organizations. There are advocates for a centralized or international privacy framework for social media and internet technologies to serve all social media users regardless of the country they reside in or social media platform they choose to use. Genardus and Hackle propose national statutory mechanisms or international legal instruments, attempt to or should regulate social media, whether for intellectual property rights enforcement, antitrust, privacy or other public interest concerns. A framework of this type is a lofty goal, but it is still possible direction for privacy in the future as governments can come to consensus regarding privacy protections. As privacy stands today, there is room for change in many different areas to address the wide breadth of privacy concerns for social media users worldwide. As privacy acts, laws and amendments and policies are instituted or changed in individual countries, there is bound to be a ripple effect in evoking change with privacy on social media worldwide. Conclusions. Our research efforts revealed a great deal of information regarding social media, freedom of information, privacy and government as separate topics as well as a combination of one or two topics. However, we were unable to find a great deal of research including all variables. This research led us to a greater understanding of how governments in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and the United Kingdom currently use social media and how governmental services can be utilized via these platforms. But without a breath of research focusing on federal government, social media effects on freedom of information acts and privacy, we were not able to come to any definitive conclusions about governmental social media use helping or hindering in these areas. We did come up with some further suggestions for research in the future. Future research in these areas would be valuable in understanding if freedom of information requests are being hampered or facilitated by governmental social media use. Research should examine the effects of governmental social media regarding the perception and usage of freedom of information or access to information acts by citizens. Further research regarding privacy should also include examining privacy expectations, social media regulation and data mining as well as the benefits and drawbacks of implementing a single international regulatory framework for social media platforms adherence as well as privacy management at the federal level. Does anyone have any questions? Yeah, I had a couple just kind of wondering how you went about choosing which countries to examine. And then also while you were researching if you found any, you saw any like upcoming countries that someone looking at future research might be interested in if there's any third world countries or things like that that might be getting into the privacy game. We chose some of the countries because there were articles regarding social media use in these countries specifically. There was more information out there for us to go and look at and to go and take apart as for other countries in the up and coming. I did find a couple of articles comparing social media use by governments in like Spain and Mexico, but there wasn't as much information available since it seems like they're rolling out their social media usage a little bit different. They're using more mobile base rather than using say just, you know, our traditional internet connections in our homes. So it's just looking at the differences there, but I would think that there are more countries that are there's going to be more information available, especially after more elections and those kinds of things come out. Yeah, there was actually an article or two that I read that we're looking at the Mexico and then some countries in Africa. But they were all very focused more on like how mobile usage and cell phone usage are changing the face of corruption in those governments and things along those lines. To answer your question, Dr. Dalby, we didn't really look at the private sector so much. We were definitely looking at the federal level of the government for the research in that area would probably be valuable as well. Just to look at how they are being serviced for the freedom of information as well as to go and look at some of the privacy violations, which I did come in contact with quite a few of those for like the United States and Canada specifically. What was the research you were able to find? We tried to stick within about five years. There was one article I think I used that was from 2010, but for the most part we tried to stay within 2012 to present. I have a quick question. Great presentation, Kristen and Jamie. Amazing work and so comprehensive and I learned so much. So thank you for sharing this wonderful knowledge with us. I really appreciate it. So as you see in terms of social media, I really like to be the connection that you made between politicians using social media as both a public and a private way as well as being a very official and in very quick links. That was just so interesting to me. So in terms of freedom of information, if government agencies and politicians are using social media both public and private ways and official and quick, I assume in your research you all found that this was all subject to being official government records and then therefore all subject to freedom of information requests. There is never going to be a distinction between using a public account that may be a politician seeing something very privately. I assume it's all going to be considered public records and then all subject to freedom of information. When things are in this public space, freedom of information is a little easier because it's all publicly available. Did I summarize that right? Yeah, that was kind of a recurrent thing that came up. That, you know, if these politicians are using their public accounts, that is public, a public information that definitely falls under freedom of information request. So they have to balance what they're willing to put out there because they don't want to put anything that's too personal and then have that be subject to freedom of information request if they don't feel comfortable with that being public. So there was a lot of that discussed in many of the articles that we read. You have some excellent questions. We're almost up to the hour now, so I'd like to thank the audience for attending and I'm going to stop our recording.