so guys there is a phantom liberty cyberpunk iconic legendary weapon that has been surrounded by mystery we just don't know exactly for sure how to get this thing now i uploaded a compilation video of all iconics uh all legendos added to the phantom liberty dlc and i added this uh this weapon to that video to that compilation because the only record get it was to create a new character and do a few things there but that doesn't really seem to help anybody because people have tried exactly what i've done and it does no path open for them this umbral x mod 2 is locked behind like a sheet of metal on top of a building we don't know how to remove this sheet of metal or absolutely anything but no ifs no buts now guys today i'll showcase to you no matter where you are on your playthrough if you've completed the phantom liberty dlc if you're just starting it if the path is blocked off it don't matter today i'll showcase to you exactly how you get this weapon how's it going guys my name is dpj and if you're doing enjoyed the video leave a like really helps out and feel like what you see and want to see more be sure to subscribe so you can see right here guys this is where you need to come to on the map right there so this like rooftop here is where we're coming to i'm just gonna mark that and quickly jog here now what i will say is you'll see this on the screen now when i'm running here again i created a new character basically well it went actually new characters not a character but it hadn't started the phantom liberty dlc yet so i went onto that character i went through the first few missions of the phantom liberty dlc i got up to the liquidity of my reflection which is basically the mission where you go on uh you go and search for read or you go and find read um i didn't do that part i went and did a side gig for mr hands just one and then did a airdrop on top of the roof and then i went back here and the path was clear but other people have tried this confirm this doesn't work for them so i just don't know what it is there's something along the lines of the story maybe that unlocks it i don't know or there's a certain point you progress past it's blocked off but either all guys you need to come to this point here you can see the rooftop up there i've got a cool that lift i probably have yeah so the rooftop's here but i'll just quickly pull up my map again um so i'm right here this is where you want to be basically right there so the lift will be calling down now the only things you need for this is a motorbike and a quick hack so i'll go to your intelligence and you want to purchase this thing right here car hacker purchase that that's all you need now this may work with a car the problem is you may be able to get the weapon with a car but you won't be able to get out so i do suggest you go in and get in one of the many motorbikes in the game before attempting this because you may get stuck in here you have to load up an order save and always guys always create a save before attempting anything like this just in case you do get stuck and you can't get out rather you really don't know what to save and get stuck in here and waste your actual game so yeah do what you gotta do people but again it's just surrounded by we just it's shrouded by mystery we just don't know how to get this thing i thought it was a bug original i thought it was a bug but with their 2.01 patch nothing's changed the path is still blocked off for almost everybody everyone's still speculating about how this is unlocked we still don't know again this method today guys show you exactly how you do this so you can see right here for me it's blocked off no matter what you do you can't get up there i mean the gap is so small you can stand next to it but you can't get through it if you dodge i'm spamming my buttons people and nothing is working it's a pain in the arse and again there's many many players out there that this is an iconic that they're missing because most of the iconics in this this DLC you can more or less get apart from when you get to fire start mission we have to pick a choice between read and sungbird other than that every other one you can more or less get or at least purchase if you miss them at a black market vendor this one you can't so yeah so now we're here guys we're on top of the roof this is what you want to do with that quick hack make sure you got that again make sure you have this car jack i mean just refund any other one you've got or if you got the point spare just purchase it for now because you can always refund them so with this and with a motorbike you want to jump up onto this ledger right here so you want to turn around and face this just like i don't even know what that is that big metal construction thing so face that and then guys you want to pull out a motorbike any motorbike doesn't really matter i'm just gonna go with jackies my favorite one and then you'll notice that the motorbike spawns right there so now what you gotta do is you gotta use your quick hacks come down to take it or take control execute that take control of the bike and you want to change your camera angle now here you just want to reverse it back up you're going to knock yourself off and you're going to come out of this but it don't matter let's go back into it so let's go a bit further forward you have to get the angle right as well let's go backwards a bit here keep coming back so you're gonna knock yourself off that's fine nothing more about that i'm just gonna jump down now i'm just gonna take control again just like so and then you just want to reverse it so the back wheel is hanging over the back that's what you gotta do just slightly you don't want to go too far so don't be using your brake obviously you can't be using your brake don't be using your accelerator to go forward just try and like balance out use your handbrake on xbox this is the a button on playstation i'm guessing it's x button on pc i haven't got a clue so you just want it over the edge just like that that's how you want it now guys just want to jump up next to it and it has to be at that angle otherwise it blocks you from you need to be standing basically there and then guys you can just jump on so if you angle this out at like this angle the way my camera's going up and down you can't squeeze down here so you can't get onto the bike if you basically it's just boggy so now we jump on and then guys just go forward like that simple as that now we need that bike so don't go braking it don't go blowing it up don't go parking it on that electric now just get off it and remember guys you should have made a save before you come in here we'll have auto shit saves anyway now if we walk around this corner you'll see that the weapon will just appear just like that there's a bit of ammo here too guys i don't know what's on that body don't even know what that is um i don't think it does that give anyone clues of how this place is uh unlocked but i'm not sure now just jump across guys and now we have the umbil x mod 2 and it's a badass weapon as well that's the thing about this thing it's a badass weapon so yes guys this is how you get it without well cracking the cold of how you get through here oh i've got a skill shot there's one nice okay so now guys we just want to get back out so how you get back out is actually easier so jump back on your bike you just want to reverse up reverse into the gap just like so get as far into it as you can so you can't go any further spin the camera and then jump off get off and there we go yeah as simple as that guys and that is how you get the umbil x mod 2 it's pull the bad boy out i'll show you a little bit of gameplay with you if you haven't got this thing already it's a great weapon it's accurate fuels nifty this is about mods as well it's got a bit of enemies around here somewhere there you go there's a couple i just it just it just feels super accurate just barely any recoil on it like i like it a lot people okay so yeah i love this thing and there we have it guys that's how you get the umbil x mod 2 anywhere through your playthrough doesn't matter if it's blocked off or not guys if you enjoyed the video leaving a like really helps out if you like what you're seeing want to see more be sure to subscribe and hopefully guys i will see you on that next one


Right, well, good afternoon. Kia ora tatou. Yes, Adam should have been here, and about three weeks ago I got the last minute opportunity to go on the museum leadership programme at Macquarie University in Sydney, and I went to him and said, look, it's looking like I might not get to NDF. And he goes, hmm, I think I've got a better excuse. So, and had a text from an hour ago and baby is nearly here. The main reason I wish Adam was here is that this is the project that he has been putting his heart and soul into for the last two and a half years, and I know he was really looking forward to being here to share it this afternoon. So I'm going to do my best to present what we were going to do together. He did also say to me on Friday, I wish I'd thought about this 40 weeks ago. So Auckland Museum, just by the piece of interaction I need to give you, is more around the variety of the collections. It's a reasonably encyclopedic museum. We sometimes say that we're an A to Z museum with a few letters missing. Over the last at least 20 years the collections have been increasingly made digital, put into databases, adding digital images, but even after that 20 years' work we still have only one-third of the collection cataloged in an electronic form, and only one-tenth of that third have a digital image. So we've got quite a long way to go. But the point about this slide is the variety of types of data that we're dealing with. In 2012 we published this document which is our high level strategic plan to guide the processes that we're going through to renew our institution. It sets out some values around how we place the collection at the very centre of everything we do and treat audience engagement as the primary thing that comes from that. It also expresses that the museum building is just one of the ways that we're going to achieve our aims, and the mantra of everything we do, having a component of being on-site and off-site and online, is something that most museum staff now that just rolls off the tongue. Every project that we begin, what's the off-site component? What's the on-line component? What's the on-site component? In terms of online collection access, what we've had to date was the system we knew in-house as MUSE. It was launched in 2007. These were really just curated subsets of the collection. Each department had its own small search page. In some cases there were only perhaps 100 collection items per search. Data was not updated regularly. The only database that was really kept up-to-date was the library catalogue. The system suffered from a bit of a build-and-forget phenomenon. A whole lot of money was spent in that period, but then the focus went elsewhere and there wasn't effort and money put into keeping it up-to-date and keeping it developed. We needed to do something about this as guided by our future museum aspirations. We believe that, like I presume most people in this room, museum and library business is in a state of continual change and that in order to both look after the heritage that we have inherited but also make sure that it continues to be relevant for new audiences, we had to do something quite different. So in redeveloping the Collections Online project, we had two guiding principles that we started with. That is that we are open as a rule and closed by exception and that we are one collection, not many. Now, Courtney, you talked about digital brand and I actually was thinking actually this is possibly, these two phrases are probably our digital brand and I'm going to take that and have a way to think about how we apply it in fact to the onsite experience so I think we can use that usefully. Now, this might not be too revolutionary, but for an organisation that is 163 years old that has certain ways of doing things and certain heritances through staff passing on practice from one to the next, it has required quite a bit of rethinking and change. One of the things that we looked at was to start using linked open data to make true those things about being open and being a single collection, not discrete units. We wanted an environment that would encourage new forms of searching and new connections between collections. The museum is the first slide showed. We've got 12 different collecting areas, 12 different data standards and what I came to realise was that in each pocket those data standards are right. The bottomists describe things in certain ways because they need to conform to international standards and maintain connectivity, but that doesn't connect sideways across other collections in the museum. So, although perhaps some in the room and I remember sitting in meetings when I worked at the National Library where there was much tuttying about multiple data standards, but in fact they come from a good place and what we have to get cleverer at is joining them up, not destroying the reason they existed in the first place, but building the bridges between them. That's what the linked open data schema allowed us to have a look at. What it's based on is breaking down every single piece of information into its smallest bytes, so these things called triples. So it's a subject, a predicate and an object, so a thing, a relationship and another thing, a concept, a relationship and another concept. What that allows us to do is free things from the original context and recombine them in new contexts but not forget where they've come from. So perhaps an example of the kind of things that we're trying to say. As well as breaking things up, it also allows the system to start building inferences between pieces of information. For example, I was born in 1967. Digital decimal currency came into existence in New Zealand in 1967. Those are two separate pieces of information, but they've got something in common and the system can infer then, without having to write it down, that I was born in the year that digital decimal currency came into being. The kinds of things that we were hoping that would come from this was that people would not have to know how we organised the museum. So the previous Muse databases, you had to know what we had put in the Applied Arts database as a distinct from the History database. You had to know what entomology was and to know that's where you'd find the butterflies. So what we're wanting to do with the one collection philosophy is to start with a front door that can look at everything. With one search, you could find the skeleton of a tui, a bird. You could find the cloak that contained tui feathers. You could find the sixpence that has the tui on it. You could find the book in the library or the manuscript that refers to tui. And we're then removing the need for our audience to have to imagine how it is that we've organised things. And I remember one day through the, as we were working with Adam and the team through this, that we were just sort of coming back from a meeting with our technical partners and I said, what it's actually like is that things exist out in the world in all sorts of complex ways. We bring them into a museum and then we compartmentalise them. We put them into this department or that department. We describe them in certain ways. What we needed to do was free them of those strictures that we'd put on them and return them to the world in their complexity and their joined-upness. So that's what the philosophy of the system was that we've built. Quite a lot of work though. This is our data map, our concept diagram. Not expecting you to read the words. The point is just to say it's a complex picture. So this is the diagram of all the different kinds of fields that we can have in our databases. The three systems are our library and documentary heritage system, our core objects and specimens database, which some of you will have heard about yesterday. All of these are being mushed into a new digital content platform. The source databases still perform their core functions as collection management systems and so forth behind the scenes, but for the public use, we needed to bring all of that data together and make sense and draw the connections between the different kinds of data. Adam's and Britain have me a whole lot of stuff about this, but I'm going to skip on. It is to an international standard. CDOC is the semantically rich, the richness of all of these relationships that produces a set of rules which lets us understand that birth date is different from establishment date, that it's different from the date something was made. It's a work in progress. It'll never be finished. What happens when you... So this is the data that can exist for just one object, all of these possible little packets of information. When we put our nearly one million records that were ready into the system and set it to go, it created 67 million triples, different pieces of information that could be inferred about the network of our collection. Graphically, it looks a bit like this. So the diagram on the left is a picture of just 1,000 objects and all the different connections that they can have. The one nearest me is the connections between artists. So that's taking all of our Crown Lynn collections and making the links to all the artists who worked at Crown Lynn all over their career or over the establishment of that company and just linking up all the who worked with whom in a graphical form. But that's the technology. We've also got a building full of people who need to be populating this system and working with it and be thinking about it. It was very important for us to bring the entire organisation along with us, particularly those who work closely with the collections. So we had various workshops, we had all-staff meetings along the way through the project to test our ideas, also to get people familiar with the fact that we weren't going to be working in the way that we always have been. For a brief moment, we had a dedicated room, so when we had the prototype system ready, it was a drop-in centre for anybody in the organisation to come in and try and play with it, break it, tell us their disappointments about what we hadn't achieved. And also workshops to think about some of the really gnarly issues. In order to be a truly open collection, we had to think through some of the things which are more sensitive about museum collections and sensitive about the way people have written about them and cared for them up till now. We had to ensure that the level of trust that the museum enjoys wouldn't be wrecked by us just blasting out a whole lot of rubbish information and think through what some of those stakeholders would consider to be important. The shift is quite substantial. And if you think of curators, collection managers, librarians who have treated this system as an in-house system that they were managing their collections for in over 20 years, that's all it had been. And suddenly, it's like the real estate agents come along and we're doing an open home on Saturday. Suddenly, like, well actually no, I don't want everybody looking through all my cupboards and drawers and the kitchen's not clean and there's quite a journey to go on to suddenly be forced to make stuff public. The other aspect of this was that there wasn't time to tidy the house before the crowds come in. Some of the concerns are the records ready, are not complete, they look messy, I'm going to be embarrassed amongst my colleagues if we release these. In some cases we know we've got inaccurate information in some fields concerned that that might mislead people, particularly in the scientific sphere where information gets exported and then aggregated with other data sets. Of course there is some confidential data. Where's our tolerance around that? Issues of privacy. So these things all came up and we debated them in working groups. We tried to work, because there's no right answer to quite a lot of these things, we tried to introduce the idea of a benefit harm continuum. So for each instance we had tried to think what's the benefit of releasing the information? What's the potential harm of it? What's the benefit of keeping it closed? What's the potential harm of keeping it closed? So asking the two ends of the spectrum in both directions. Referring back to things like NZ Goal which gives great good guidance about principles of openness and also the principles of our future museum document which is about engaging audiences with collections. Just as one quick example, the matter of acquisition price. These three items are currently on display at the museum as part of a small display marking the bicentenary of Marston's first sermon. The little book, Akaroa No New Zealand, is the first book printed in Māori in 1815. There was only one copy left in existence. It was purchased by the museum in 1894 for £1.15 shillings. That is quite an interesting piece of information because that's about the same as a fortnight's rent on a house. So it tells you a little bit about how much we valued those things at that time. In the middle is the Hongiheka Mary which was gifted to Mary Marston, Samuel Marston's daughter. The museum purchased that from the family and it had come down through descent for all those years but it was purchased for a private sum and it was funded by the museum's patron circle. That information, the understanding is that that's confidential. On this side, the Te Pahi Medal which was purchased last year in a joint bid between Te Papa and the Auckland Museum. That one is also a recent purchase so we were thinking maybe old acquisitions we can release the information and new ones we shouldn't but this one was bought at public auction. The information is already out there so why would we hide that and also public money was spent on it? Shouldn't we be accountable for that? So you can't have one single rule for all of these collection items. Then we got clever with inventing a filter so we had to think through because we can't possibly categorise and go through every field for three million objects to try and work out which one's open, which one's closed. We tried to think of a way to categorise for each of our 12 collecting areas just four categories of openness and what those four categories would include. So which fields would be included and which records would be included. You can see there, predominantly open means that we perceive that there's no problem if we're pretty okay with the information and then go down to things which are closed which we know are really problematic. What we tried to do was get most things in the predominantly open, predominantly closed category and then we of course discovered a fifth category which was restricted which is actually records that we never want out there. So for instance our records of human remains they are not for the public database and we don't believe they will ever be. So what we tried to do was get around the problem of every single record being just a black and white decision realising that there was actually grades of openness that we could have. So instead of one record, well is it on the database or is it not, we can say well most of them are but within that there's gradations of how open they are, how much information is released. And this actually helped hugely getting staff comfortable with the idea of releasing information. So we went through and applied these ABCDs in eight weeks to every single collection item in our collection and doing it by grouping things and then running programmes to just add a flag in the source databases. What we've ended up with is the red line where we've got a small number of records with quite a few fields visible and a larger number of records with a smaller number of fields available. What we want to do over time is move towards the green line where most records have most of their fields exposed but recognising of course there'll always be some which are kept confidential. Things like for botanical specimens of an endangered species, we don't want to display the location of those last few plants because that could cause difficulty if people suddenly decide they're going to go and souvenir them. And I've already mentioned things like acquisition price. So what does it end up with in terms of being able to be used? We built on top of this sort of the black box in the middle, our digital content platform, the linked open data graph that holds all of the 67 million triples. We built the new Collections Online website and this is both in the top section there. It's both a search interface and we tested varying levels of advanced search or not and different ways of faceting a layer below that. What's been pleasingly successful is our topic pages and we decided to put in 40 samples of different areas of the collection, utilising images, sort of like a mini encyclopedia page, I suppose, and initially, and I don't know if Gareth's in the room, he is. So Gareth helped manage this for us and to start with we were looking at 10 topic pages and I said, no, not enough. Cos what I thought would happen is we just did 10, it would be like the top 10 museum hits. What are the top 10 things that we're known for? And then I could see months of meetings arguing about which was in the 10 and which wasn't. So by making it a larger number, it actually got rid of that and it means that we've now had staff from all over the organisation submitting their little, I suppose like blog posts or their little pieces of research into all sorts of curious corners of the collection. So in fact there aren't many of our 40 topic pages which you would think of as the top 10. We've got the bottom 40 or something, not the bottom 40. But it's given a really rich, curious insight into the different kinds of things that the museum holds that people might not expect and it gives a little bit of a clue for people who don't, if they're just faced with a blank search box, well, I don't know, what should I search on? The other part of this digital content platform is that it is the reservoir and we have opened it up with an API and used it ourselves for the collect and connect table which some of you may have seen the presentation on earlier. And it's open for anybody else to come in and interrogate. That's all very well, but what next? What we've realised now is that we've built the vessel but we have to get the other two thirds of the collection catalogued. Just in the last couple of months, we have closed one of our or two of our conjoined gallery spaces, the Oceans and Coastal Galleries which between them had about 300 collection items in them and that's going to be turned into a collections hub for the next three years to employ additional staff, particularly to look at our Pacific collections but also to run a cataloging programme across all of the other backlog areas of the collection and a photographic studio staffed to really ramp up the quantity of images that we have available. So we're converting a part of the building which used to have a certain number of visitors through and a fairly small number of collection items into something that's going to feed the offsite and the online and my argument is that this is a much richer use of that piece of real estate. And with good grace, the curators in the marine area were really happy about that because when we did our calculations of the size of the backlog, the marine area has a 47-year backlog of un-catalogged material so they could see themselves as the beneficiaries of this project. I think I'll leave it there and I've got 57 seconds left, how's that? Yeah, happy to take any questions and if I don't know them, I'll just flick them on to Adam. Hey David, so I was picking up on your point about my point about digital brands and acknowledging your position as an unsychopedic museum, do you think this commitment to openness will flow through into your future collecting policies that you will be acquiring objects on the basis of their ability to be open and that they may tilt your collecting decisions away from things that can't be? I think it certainly will because already our acquisition agreements assume that it's going to go online and we actually changed the wording of the acquisition agreement where people opt out of having their name published, for example. Assume that the donor will have their name published and they can ask for it not to be. Previously, our form said please tick here if you would like your name published and just that subtle change and so that's an example of yes, I think that philosophy will flow through. So now that you've opened up the data, I was just wondering if anyone's using it. Have you had any good examples yet? We haven't got lots of examples yet. It is only end of June that this was launched. Adam did tell me how many people he's given the API keys to and I can't recall how many it is. It's a handful. So yep, there's one there. So I think early days and we're really looking forward to what people will do with the data. Ah, it's the third most popular section on the web page. After centre half perhaps. So I was really good to see how the decision-making process you went through about making it open and not making it open kind of touched on stuff I was talking about yesterday about being well managed in that. Are you thinking of maybe publishing your policies and stuff as Creative Commons license to open policies so that other organisations can learn from you? There's a lot that Te Papa and Auckland Museum and National Library and Archives can do to help the smaller museums to make those decisions themselves. Yep, I think we can certainly do that. What we've got at the moment are those policies in a fairly written and a quite internally focused way. But I think our focus has been on getting this thing built and getting it out the door. Now we can reflect a little bit and in fact even just Adam and I this presentation has helped us think through what are the key things that we feel we've achieved and you're absolutely right we should publish those and make them shareable. In some ways this is a bit of a rich question from me. It can be quite hard for research purposes for example to work with an API in order to, so those visualisations that you displayed before they require almost like a huge chunk of the data set which is very difficult to get at through a series of API calls. Would there be any consideration for certain purposes to release the data as a bulk download? So we have got a download button on the site so both individual records can be downloaded and also search results can be downloaded and we initially put a limit of around 200 items on that but we've just opened that right up because initially we're worried about what server traffic that might cause. In fact we've decided to go the other way. We'll apply our own policy be open, see what happens and then chunk it back if we have to. So in fact now you can search for the entire database and download it as a API but only certain fields. We've chunked it that way but not that way. We'll know who's done it. Big round of applause for David. I think a lot of people are watching you.


the Wynn Resort in Las Vegas. It's theCUBE, covering .next conference 2016. Brought to you by Nutanix. Now, here are your hosts, Dave Vellante and Stu Miniman. Welcome back, everybody. Professor Deepak Malhotra is here. He's with the Harvard Business School and author of Negotiating the Impossible, How to Break Deadlocks and Resolve, Ugly Conflicts, Parenthetical Without Money or Muscle and Parenthetical. Deepak, welcome to theCUBE. Great to see you. Thanks for having me here. Happy to be here. So what are you doing here? Well, among the other things that I do with my time, I happen to be on the board of advisors for Nutanix and I've been working with Nutanix for the last, a little over two years on various aspects of negotiation, deal making, training, et cetera. And so I attend a few of their conferences, a few of the sessions. I talk at a few of the conferences as well, so that's what brings me here. So it's somewhat odd to have a negotiations expert come and talk to customers about negotiations, but I guess the angle would be, if you're stuck in sort of a legacy world, you need to negotiate your way out, is that- Well, there's a couple things going on there, right? So on the one hand, I think it shows a little bit about Nutanix's perspective, that it isn't a zero sum game. It's not we're going to train the Nutanix people so they can get an advantage over customers. I think the company really is focused on creating as much value as possible for the end user. And when you take that mindset, it actually makes sense to be inclusive and bring everybody in the ecosystem into the room. So it's not just, hey, Professor Mahlutra, can you train our salespeople? It's, you know, we want to share your ideas with everybody. And I think that's really a good sign when a company's willing to do that. The second thing is, as you just alluded to, a lot of the folks that are coming here and a lot of the people that are customers who are thinking about moving in the direction of Nutanix or have bought into the idea, they still may need to sell it internally. They still may need to negotiate internally, how do we change our organization, or how do we move our organization from what it's been doing to what it wants to be doing or it should be doing. And they're also, many of the same skills can be useful. So why not educate them about some of the things that they might not have thought about yet? So let's talk about your book a little bit, The Premise. I guess I told you I haven't read it yet, but I do have it. In the book, you talked about a 3,000 year old treaty of Kadesh. And things that we can learn from 3,000 years ago. Give us the basics and the premise. So the book starts out with this story of the Treaty of Kadesh, which I don't think is something that many business books start out talking about. Certainly I hadn't seen it before, I started researching it. And one of the interesting thing that happens is that there's a lesson embedded in the story of the Treaty of Kadesh that I think is as relevant today in negotiations of just about every kind in the business world and outside, that that's worth telling. And the basic story goes as follows. The Treaty of Kadesh is the most ancient peace treaty known to mankind. As far as we know, it's as old a peace treaty as we have evidence of. And it was between the Egyptians and the Hittites. And these two parties were at war. And at some point they must have decided, enough of this, we need to put an end to this. There's too many costs internally and externally, too many other threats. We need to find a way to resolve this conflict. What often happens in these situations is that nobody wants to look weak. Nobody wants to be the one asking for peace because that might just embolden the other side. So what ends up happening is that somehow they overcome these hesitations, they reach this agreement. Now what's interesting is that we actually have access to both languages, version of the treaty. So we have the Akkadian and the hieroglyphics. The hieroglyphics being the Egyptian version and the Akkadian being the one from the Hittites. And if you were to read both of these, or if you were to first learn how to read these and then to read both of these, what you find is, as you'd expect, they have a lot of the kinds of things that you would normally expect in a peace treaty. You know, exchanging prisoners of war and mutual assistance packs and things like this. And they're basically identical, as they should be because they're the same peace treaty. But there is one difference. When you compare the two peace treaties, the one difference that sort of stands out is that in the Egyptian version, it says it's the Hittites who came asking for peace. And in the Hittite version, it says it's the Egyptians who came asking for peace. And what it goes to show, I think, is that no matter how far back you go, this need for every side to declare victory at the end of a negotiation, at the end of a conflict, that need for every side to declare victory is as old as human beings themselves. When you understand that, I think it actually changes the way in which you try and negotiate these deals. How you think about what stands in the way of getting the deal done. Sometimes it's not the substance of the deal. You're already proposing something that's good enough. You already have something on the table that's rich enough, valuable enough, they should say yes. But there might be other reasons they can't say yes. For example, they might lose face, or they may look bad. And when you recognize that, I think you come at it a different way. So, looking at your research, one of the things you focus on is trust. And one of the challenges we have in technology is people are entrenched with the way they do things. They're not likely to be first or go there. We've now got thousands of people using Nutanix. But how does Nutanix or others that are new get a proper seat at the table and be able to be part of a discussion that when you've got big incumbents in there and the old ways of doing things? The way I see it, you have to get the economics right and you have to get the psychology right. The economics is you have to have a good product. It needs to be priced appropriately. You need to be bringing value to the table and repricing based on that value proposition. So that's sort of basic business stuff. The problem is, as I mentioned earlier, you may have the right product. You may have something that people quote should be using. It is better than the alternative. But there might be these psychological hurdles that you need to get over. A prominent one being what you just alluded to, which is when nobody else is doing it, nobody feels the urgency to do it. If you get the sense that there's not a mass of folks running after your product, they sort of feel like, well, maybe that means something. Maybe it means it's not a big deal. Maybe it means it's not so urgent. Maybe it's not that good of a product. So the early hurdles that companies like this face are really big ones. You don't have a long list of customers that you can use to prove to other people that this is the way you should be going. There are, there's always a risk that somebody's going to take a bet on this and if something goes wrong, you know, it's sort of the old nobody lost their job buying IBM kind of a mentality. And so as a negotiator and as a company that's starting out as an early stage company, especially in technology where you're doing something disruptive, you need to start thinking a little bit about how do we get them over that? How do we get them to start understanding that you know what, here is a list of customers that are using it and then here's the testimonials, et cetera. You think about the pricing. The most common thing that happens when you walk into the room with a new disruptive technology is that the person on the other side says, are you crazy? You're charging 10 times what your competitor is charging.  You know, if I do nothing, I have to pay zero. All right, nobody pays this kind of money for this kind of thing. That is a very common response salespeople get when they are in an environment like this. And one of the things I advise people to do in that situation is to make sure they don't make the worst mistake a salesperson can make in a moment where somebody says, your price is 10 X, what everybody else is charging, nobody pays this much. The worst mistake a salesperson can make is to apologize for the price being too high. Now they don't always do it by saying, oh my God, I'm so sorry, but they seem apologetic.  But yeah, you know, I know it's a lot of money. The moment you go in that direction, what you're basically doing is you're giving the other side a license to haggle with you. Cause what you're telling them is that even you don't think the price is appropriate. A better response in a situation like this is for the salesperson to say, listen, I think the question you're asking me is, how is it that despite our price being 10 X what some other people are charging, we have a long list of people wanting to buy our product, what kind of value must we be bringing to the table for so many people wanting to buy this product? Now I'm happy to talk about that value because at the end of the day, we all know nobody's going to pay more for something than it's worth. Nobody would do that. You're not going to do that. So why don't we figure out what it's worth? And then you can make the right decision. And what you're doing there is you're shifting the conversation from price to value. You're shifting the frame of this conversation from how much am I having to pay and what's the cost to me to what is the value proposition? Stu's laughing. I mean, your price is too high as the best sales objection ever. You love to hear that as a salesperson.  Now the answer to this question is probably it depends, but when you advise your clients and your friends, when I go into a negotiation, am I trying to get the best deal or am I trying to find common ground and get a win-win? Actually, I don't think it depends. I think, well, I would articulate the question slightly differently because in my experience, it is possible to get a great deal and a great relationship. It's also possible to get neither. And so what you're trying to do is you're trying to optimize on both. What's interesting is that very often we assume that it's a zero-sum game enough that the only way for me to get a good deal is for me to sacrifice a relationship in some way. That's not how it works in most sort of richer contexts, more complicated deal scenarios. Because what people evaluate when they walk away from the table isn't just did I get a quote good economic deal. When people think back and say, do I want to work with this person again? Do I like this person? Did I get a good deal? Often what they're thinking about is not so much of the substance of what they got, what's in the agreement, but the process they went through. For example, did the negotiations go as long as it should have or did it drag on too long or end too abruptly? Was my voice heard? Did both sides move away from their opening positions? Did the person haggle with me on every little thing even though they knew and I knew it's not a big deal to them and it was a big deal to me? Those sorts of process elements, if you navigate the process more effectively, you can often get to a point where you get the deal that you think is right for you and you get a relationship that both sides can walk away feeling good about. And from my perspective, what does depend on the situation is what kind of feeling you want them to have walking away. You don't always need to have them love you, but at the very least they should respect you. And I think it's perfectly fair, even in a very contentious negotiation, to keep as one of your objectives. When the deal ends, I want them to be able to walk away saying, you know what, I maybe didn't agree with this person. It didn't go exactly the way I would have wanted to go, but I can respect this person for the way they handle the situation. And if I were them, I hope I would do it the same way. So I wonder if I look at just society as a whole, it seems that we've kind of retreated to our sides and I find lots of people aren't open for debate. They're intractable in what's going on. How do I get beyond that? How do we change society? Is that the question? Yeah, I mean, is it only 10% of the people that are intractable or are most people unreasonable? So I think what happens is there's a few interesting dynamics and I wouldn't have the precise numbers. What I can say is that it is certainly the case that even a minority of people being in those entrenched positions, they get a lot more of the media, they get a lot more of the attention, they tend to be louder, et cetera. And they can often drive our sense of what's actually happening and it can drive the narrative. Now that doesn't mean there aren't real differences, like strong differences. You know, what's interesting is if you take people that are not on the extremes, you take the moderates, sometimes the way in which we engage with people on the other side of the argument pushes them to be more extreme. See, when we ourselves show up, thinking of ourselves as relatively moderate and lightened people who have a set of point of view, but you know what, I'm very open to other people's perspective. But then we get into the conversation and we end up challenging people in a way that they don't find particularly useful. We start poking holes, we start making it, it's about a winning and a losing and a debate and there's gonna be, you know, at the end of the day, points scored based on who wins the argument, then people end up getting more and more entrenched, even in ways that they otherwise wouldn't be. So the question is, can we get to a point where at least those people on each side, and I find on any political issue, I can find people on both sides that I think are trying to do the right thing and have, you know, perhaps limited information, but they're trying to do the best they can with that information, they have good intentions, and they're recently smart people. In my experience, you don't need two people, one of whom is either evil or crazy or irrational, to have conflict. You just need two people. You see good, smart, reasonably well-intentioned people getting into conflict all the time, which then becomes the question of this book, which is how do we manage those situations? How do we get people to back away from these entrenched positions? How do we overcome deadlock in a way that allows both sides to walk away feeling a little bit better about the situation? So examples are instructive, so let's talk about some great negotiators. Who are they? Let's start with sports. Scott Boris, right? You think of him as an agent to me. Grinding the teams, the general managers. Is he a good negotiator? So I don't follow many of the sports deal-making and negotiations enough to be able to, you know, really elaborate on who would be a good negotiator in sports, but I can say this, that, you know, in a context where it's really just about things like price, just about the money, and, you know, a sports agent often is, it's not really all about that, but it is the most salient issue, you know, it is the most salient issue. You know, you're going to go out of a certain way. And it would be similar to a negotiation in the business world where, you know, all you care about is price.  And from my perspective, there are people who are very good at haggling. There's people who can, you know, hold their cars to the chest, and they can be aggressive when they need to be, and they can be persuasive in certain things. But when you look at negotiation as a whole, I think of haggling as a very, very thin slice of what negotiation is about. That's sort of the easy stuff. You may not be naturally good at it, but what it takes to become good at it is not so hard. We teach that on sort of day one of class.  It's the, you know, there's two sides, and you want opposite things, and how do you frame it in the right way, and what kind of concession rate should you make or not make, how do you justify your proposals, et cetera. We cover that on day one, and the problem is there's, in our owner-president program where I teach, there's 15 more days left. In our MBA program, there's like 27 more days left. And there the question becomes, how do we get past just being a good haggler? Somebody who can just, you know, fist to the table and say, take it or leave it, all that kind of stuff, which will work in certain defined contexts, but will not carry over to more important deals. You're right, that is a narrow context in sports because the agent has all the leverage of the players, you know, performed. How about Donald Trump?  When he says Mexico's going to build the wall, I mean, is he wrote the book? The Art of the Deal? He did write that book. He co-authored that book, actually. Yes. So is he negotiating when he says that? In the broader sense of the word negotiation, which is basically, you know, how do we interact with other human beings who see things differently than we do, he absolutely is negotiating. If the question then becomes, is he doing it effectively? You know, my view would be that he is not. And I think if you actually were to, you know, look at the evidence and then stack it up, I think you would find that he's, he's not a very effective negotiator. We don't have to go there, that's good. That's okay, I don't mind, we'll leave it there. How about like, Siddharth and Vagan, right?  Is that an example? I mean, even though it ended in tragedy in both sides, is that an example of a successful negotiation? So it's an example of a very, it is an example of a successful negotiation. And I think even more instructively, it's an example of one of the biggest barriers in conflicts like this. The hardest part is often to bring your own side with you. And that is a challenge for leadership. It's not just in the bubble of negotiation. This is about leadership generally. To be able to have someone who can not only personally be willing to do the kinds of things and make the kinds of sacrifices, but to be able to move a group of folks who for years, sometimes decades or centuries have been thinking differently. And to your point, what often happens with these peacemakers is, you know, the risk is you do one of these things and you're going to get killed. And usually you get killed by your own side. And you know, exactly in the context you're talking about, that's usually what happens. And so here what we see is not only an impressive set of events that led to the negotiation and the negotiation itself, but you see a certain amount of courage that leaders don't often enough show. And again, some leaders just aren't placed well. They don't have the support going in or they just don't have the ability to do it. But even those that do, the question is, are you willing to expend the social and political capital necessary and put yourself on the line to be able to do something that you think is worth doing? I said I wasn't going to ask you, but I am going to ask you because your answer was so good. The Iran deal, good deal, not a good deal. You see to your point about getting killed by your own side. So I was not involved with the Iran deal. I do work with sometimes governments negotiating difficult conflicts and such, but I was not in any way involved with the Iran deal. What I can say is based on the folks I've talked to leading up to the Iran deal and then after the Iran deal, it is my sense, looking at what was accomplished, that it is actually a pretty phenomenal deal for when it was done. Could a better deal have been done 10 years earlier? Yes. One of the hardest things to negotiate against in the real world is the status quo. It's a lot easier to negotiate, don't create centrifuges when there are none than it is to negotiate, remove the centrifuges you have already created. So if you could go back in time, which I have not met anybody yet who's able to do, effectively, it would be possible to get a better deal. Where things were last year and the year before, I can say that pretty much everybody you talked to before the deal was announced, on either side of the political spectrum, Republicans, Democrats, left, right, hawkish, dovish, you name it, nobody would have expected a deal, this good for the American side, at the time. Now, you may still not like it, you may be against any deal, and that's okay, you can certainly have that perspective, but if you're gonna get a deal in this environment and what was being said leading up to this, I think both sides were pretty surprised and I would even say impressed. Until it came time to start talking about it publicly, at which point, of course, you know, you have to go back to your narrative. So, you know, again, I had nothing to do with it, but when you look at it, it surprised most people in terms of what it came out to be. So what are you working on, next projects, things that are exciting in these days? So I have sort of three areas where my attention is going. One is on ethnic conflict and armed conflict, as I was alluding to earlier, I do some work with governments that are dealing with insurgencies and conflict and looking at what we know and what we not know about resolving these kinds of things and how we can maybe push forward in that direction. So that's an area of advisory work, but also research that I'm doing. Second area is I'm working with doctors, thinking about how they can be more effective in prescribing a course of action to patients, how they can have more effective conversations when a patient comes in and has a strong set of beliefs about what they should and shouldn't do, or they're resistant to change, or they're unwilling to do things, how can you be more effective in the time you spend with patients? And I do work on gun violence, and we've been looking at mass shootings, and we just had some research that got a lot of coverage, unfortunately, because of the tragedy that took place in Orlando not so long ago, looking at whether mass shootings really have any impact on gun laws, and we find some interesting results there. So in a sense, I'm sort of looking at insurgencies and dealing with cancer patients, and then gun violence. So all of the darkest stuff we can find. Tragic, but timely, and then there's another sequence there of do gun laws have an impact on mass shooting? And that's basically the next set of projects. Excellent, well thank you very much. Nice chatting with both of you today, Stu. It was great. Fantastic, absolutely. All right, keep it right there, everybody, Stu and I will be back with our next guest. We're live, this is theCUBE, SiliconANGLE's flagship production from dot next in Vegas. Right back.


And I will start with talking about my journey of 2.5 years about bugging the face search engine ClearView AI. So probably the most of us leave photos somewhere on the internet because we want to share them with friends and family. Some of us appear in the media or work at the company where your face appears on the website and the media information, leak information about you because sometimes those websites tell about your political opinion, your sexual orientation or who your employer is, stuff like that. And face search engines crawl the internet, take all those photos and make them searchable based on biometric data, which is nice because you cannot really hide from it.  And yeah, this is maybe a problem. And in early 2020, we learned about the company ClearView AI. There was this wonderful New York Times article about this company that might end privacy as we know it. And it told the world about ClearView AI, the face search engine for law enforcement, but also for private people at that time. And at this time, they had about 3 billion photos in their database. And one product they wanted to build were, for example, smart glasses. So I just could use these glasses, look into your face, and the smart glasses would tell me who you are, where you work at, and what you like and bad, for example. And today, this company, ClearView AI, has about 20 billion photos in its database. And they are aiming for 100 billion by end of the year. So yeah, their goal is to be able to identify every single one of us. Two days after this New York Times article, I sent a data subject access request to ClearView AI because I had reason to believe that they have data about me because there are some photos of my face on the Internet, for example, this photo. And I used this photo to ask ClearView AI for my data. I simply wrote an email. And after about a week, they asked me to confirm my identity. I gladly ignored this request. I do not recall why, but I know that I never replied. But still, about a month later, in February 2020, they completed my data access request and provided the search results for my face. And they also told me that they deleted the image that I shared beforehand to initiate this request. And this is the search report they prepared for this search image that I provided. So they dropped the search image a little, and they found two photos that a photographer uploaded without my consent to a stock photo website. And here you can see the photos that were shared online. I participated in a student's project, and there were media reports on this. So that is why those photos were on the Internet. In my, without asking, I got another search report by ClearView AI. So in fact, they did not delete the search image that I provided. And this time, they included eight more faces in the search report, and those pictures did not show me. So ClearView AI is far from being perfect, and here they included lots of images from a Russian social network, but also from Instagram. And additionally to those photos, they provide the URL and also the title of the web page. So you can often learn the name of the person, for example. So I learned that ClearView AI has, in fact, data of my person, biometric data, and they were using this biometric data without my explicit consent. And because of that, I wrote a complaint to the Hamburg Data Protection Authority. And a second minor issue was that the answer ClearView AI provided to me was not complete, but the main issue is that they are processing my biometric data without my consent. And to my big, really big surprise, the Hamburg DPA simply told me, yeah, GDPR is not applicable, we can do nothing. So let's have a look at this. If you look at ClearView AI, we will notice that there is some automatic processing because they are crawling the Internet. It might be true that ClearView AI has no office within the Union, but there may be some customers within the European Union, we will learn about that later. And they are monitoring behavior of European citizens, because if you regularly share photos of yourself on the Internet and ClearView AI crawls the Internet over and over again, they will have a very good profile of the things you do. And there is Article 9, which is about more sensitive data, and biometric data are sensitive data under GDPR, they are under special protection, and ClearView AI is not allowed to use this data without your explicit consent. So here we have the applicability of the GDPR again, and there could have been some exceptions under Article 6, but ClearView AI is running its service only to earn money, so this processing of biometric data is not necessary with respect to Article 6 of the GDPR. That is more or less what I answered to the Hamburg Data Protection Authority. I am not a lawyer, so I just read some articles and wrote the email as an answer to the Hamburg DPA, and they changed their mind. They agreed then that the GDPR is applicable. It might have helped that I talked to a journalist from the German media der Spiegel, and after a while the Hamburg DPA sent multiple questionnaires to ClearView AI. In the beginning they didn't really answer those requests, but after some time they were ordered under a threat of penalties to finally answer, otherwise they would have paid up to 170,000 euros. So in the end ClearView AI replied, and after about one and a half year ClearView AI deleted my biometric hash value, but they didn't care about other Hamburg residents or other German residents, and they didn't tell what they would do if they find new photos of my face in the future. And till today this complaint at the Hamburg DPA is open. There's no final decision. We will talk to them again in August. And yes, since this Spiegel article here appeared, I'm supported by Neub, none of your business, which I'm very happy about, and together we try to find a way to have your final decision soon. So it might be interesting to know who uses ClearView AI in the European Union, leaked documents that were sadly leaked only to one news organization and not to the public, so that law enforcement agencies, companies, but also some rich individuals were able to use the search engine and with the help of freedom of information requests in lots of European countries, but also with the help of members of parliaments in different countries, we learned that most countries do not know much about the use of ClearView AI by officials in those countries. So they often said there are no life or historic contracts, or they are not aware of the use of ClearView AI. That is something the European Commission said as well in July 2020. And members of the European Parliament were not so happy about this answer, because at this point in time there have been lots of media reports of also European companies that have used ClearView AI, and not just companies, but also the police in Sweden, for example, use ClearView AI on a workshop that was organized by Europol. So yeah, while Hamburg had a good start, I would say other countries developed faster than ClearView AI in the meantime was deemed illegal in Australia, Canada, the UK, but also countries of the European Union, including France, Greece, and Italy, there have been at least two fines up to 20 million euros, and there have been orders to delete the data of residents of the corresponding countries. A good question is how to enforce those, but it's a good start to finally decide that ClearView AI is illegal within the European Union. Then ClearView AI is of course not the only search engine. There's also PIMEIs. PIMEIs might be more dangerous than ClearView AI, because PIMEIs is public, can be used by every one of you, and it's basically a different search engine, but the same story, because Hamburg is doing nothing again, and PIMEIs in the beginning was based in Poland, but moved to the Seychelles to be better able to ignore the GDPR, and we learned that DPAs, data protection authorities, are too slow and GDPR does not help against the ClearView AIs of this world. And now APUNC will continue telling you about the initiative ReclaimYourFace, which might help to improve the situation in the future. Hello, hi, hi, hi, hi. Yeah, always wanted to perform on a circus tent. Never knew that it was about biometric surveillance. So I'm talking about ReclaimYourFace, an initiative that kind of turned into a network over the last one and a half years, done by EDRI, the European Digital Rights Association, where basically a rooftop organization for all the European Digital Rights NGOs. Yeah, and it's about biometric mass surveillance, and we basically demand that it is completely banned. We've heard about photos now, mainly photos, but of course biometric data is much more, it's your fingerprints, it's your voice pattern, it's your typing pattern, it's the way you walk or the pattern of your veins or whatever, and the problem is that, yeah, you usually keep these data for your whole life. So once it is in a database, it will stay there. Yeah, these slides are from EDRI and I'm basically preaching to the choir here a bit, so I'll do it fast. Of course we have the problem of general monitoring on, I don't know, parking lots, public transport, and in every corner of the city you have the cameras. You can do predictive policing with it. We all know it doesn't work, but yeah, the research goes on to work on that. The problem is that it is, yeah, kept in databases, I don't have to tell you about that, and at the borders you can get into problems if they, in real time, compare your face to the, I don't know, unwanted members of community. And as Cantolco told us, there are a lot of pictures of us in the internet. You basically can't do anything against it in this time.  It's, if we do collect like a million signatures, the European Parliament has to hear the complaints. And there were demands and there was a new law on the AI Act, the Artificial Intelligence Act, and the first proposal came out this April, and yes, some of our demands were heard. So, yeah, real-time recognition is not allowed, and remote biometric identification should be prohibited. But, of course, there are too many exceptions. There is a very vague wording, as we unfortunately have it often in European Union laws. Too many exceptions, especially for the law enforcement. And just because real-time recognition is not allowed doesn't mean that they can take all the material and scrape it afterwards. Like they did in Hamburg on the G20 Summit. They collected terabytes of material and went through it afterwards. It's still pending if that was legal or not. So, basically, if you are interested in these problems, yeah, please join the network, act on a local level, and sign the initiative. It's still going till the end of the month. Reclaim your face, and it helps to have a strong voice if you have a lot of signatures. And yes, we have stickers. Thank you very much. I'm giving the microphone to Lutter. Well, hello everyone. Since we're in the Netherlands, I'm going to tell you a little bit about the Dutch situation regarding facial recognition. And especially on Clearview AI. I myself also did a data subject access request at Clearview AI. And also my face is in this database. I had contact with the Dutch DPA also about filing a complaint, because we see now in a lot of countries in Europe that this is quite successful and that the DPAs are critical. But the Dutch DPA had a kind of different perspective, because they told us you should not file a complaint directly to Clearview AI, but you should file a complaint against a client or a customer of Clearview AI. And we thought this was kind of weird, because as Kantoorkel just also argued, the GDPR is applicable to Clearview AI directly. And it's quite hard to find out who these customers exactly are. So we worked together with a Dutch journalist to get some insight in what kind of governmental organizations were making use of Clearview. So we did FOIA request, we asked around, but nothing except the numbers that some of you might know that are published by Buzzfeed. And that told us it's the Dutch police. So we even asked directly the Dutch police to explain these numbers. But there we just got fake answers also from the minister, kind of obfuscating this whole situation by saying something like we're not using this as an organization, leaving all the space for individual cops to use Clearview AI. So now this shows several things. It makes it very hard for us to file a complaint at the Dutch DPA, since they have this different perspective. It also shows that we have one GDPR that should be applicable equally. And that's not the case. So this is a bit weird. And it's also why we would like to have a talk with you in a more interactive way also, because we're here together with a lot of people from different countries, people who might have tried different strategies, who might have to deal with different DPAs, who are in different situations. So that would be very nice. This is some things that you could do if you're worried about facial recognition use or other biometric surveillance, for that matter, in your country. It's also meant as a kind of suggestion or inspiration.  You can sign that it does help. You can also file your own access request, see whether you're in the database. It's also a good starting point for a complaint at your national DPA. And there's also other ways to put pressure, especially if you're Dutch. I would really like people to do this, because all the fines in the other European countries really show that the Dutch DPA has a perspective that's not common. And they choose to have this perspective. So I think it really helps if people put pressure on the Dutch DPA to say, hey, look at these other countries. There the DPAs are protecting the citizens. Why are you not doing anything? We want you to do something and stop this. Well, we would like to organize this struggle a bit. So you can see this talk as consisting out of two parts. This is the end of part one where we talk to you. And we would really like to have a part two where you talk to us, we will also talk back, to have a bit more of an interactive session where we can share ideas, share experiences, learn from each other, get organized, and see if we together can stop the use of biometric mass surveillance. Thank you. Can I final remark this meeting will be at the sea base? And we still have a few minutes for Q&A, if you don't mind. So if everyone has a question, please walk up to the microphone. As there are no questions from the internet, let's start at the back microphone. Please step closely to the microphone. Yeah, hi. Great talk, first of all. And great to hear myself. But for the first speaker, so what does it mean when they remove your hash value? Because if they explicitly tell in their database, this is that hash value, they still have data on you. So I'm curious if you can explain a bit more about how that works, because they can re-get your original image and start all over again. So you have to send in a request every year to get removed, or what's your experience in that, or you have more experience about this topic. Well, that is a very good question because that is exactly the point why we are not happy with the state of this complaint. Second question for the last speaker about the Dutch situation. So what was their response when you referred to Italy and the other countries billing or even finding countries that were a part of the EU, and so they should commit to the same regulations. It's the same law for the whole European Union as far as I know. Yeah, you would say that. So it's also not really clear to us why they take this stance specifically. We had conversations with them about maybe filing a complaint, and they just gave us their perspective and said like, yeah, you can come to us, but then file a complaint on the users. And these were the reasons. And after other DPAs gave the fines, we asked them and they said, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's also possible. It's really fake, but still it doesn't look like they really changed their mind. It looks like they don't have the hacker's mentality. That's for sure. Yeah, thank you. Maybe you can help us in giving them that mentality. Do you have another question? Please come up to the microphone. Yes. Thank you. I was wondering if there was maybe a chance to turn their system against them using something in an adversarial manner, stuff like this person does not exist and generating a lot of faces in a way that wouldn't match sort of your hash value, whatever this means. Or is it today it's something that's too easy to counter? Is there any sort of potential in there? No, there might be some potential, but you would help only very few people that do that. So it's not a final solution. So maybe you could help protecting yourself a little better by doing that. But I don't think that that is something you could do on scale. Okay, thank you. Hello. Thanks for the talk. Some things are quite ironic.  Someone's taking pictures. There's video everywhere.  If you want to fill in the petition, you have to enter your data. It seems like the whole system is set up to block us from doing stuff. It's not really a question. But first, thanks for being here and actually showing your face and doing this. But yeah, any general thoughts maybe you have here or something we can do and change this whole thing? Yeah, that is a very good comment because I'm here for a specific reason. I'm here to tell you about Clearview AI and I'm not here to share my biometric data. So in the future, I still want to be able to attend the protest without the fear that every policeman could be able to identify me by simply taking a picture because that might hinder me or you attending a protest. So yeah, I think it's necessary to show the face. But you have to think about the reason why people are sharing the pictures online or here. Yeah, the bigger picture. Thank you. And one last question from the microphone at the back. Yes. I've heard that a lot of people are using artistic measures to seclude their facial, you know, what is called, you know, the form of the face. So I've heard that it doesn't work that well. Are there you mean that people, for example, mask up to kind of stare at AI the wrong direction with dots and lines? Yeah. What happens kind of is that in the beginning, it works because you're covering data points.  But then, for example, during COVID, I think it happened. A lot of people had to mask on a lot. So also a lot of pictures were made of people with the mask on. So they created a database with faces that were masked to train the AI. So now they're better capable to recognize faces that are masked. And I think this dynamics, you also get with other things. Like you could now think of something else to cover a different part of your face or make it harder for in another way. And it will help temporarily. And then probably the AI is trained to, well, make it possible again. Sorry, this is very pessimistic. That's awful. Thank you for the answer. And for the talk. I do have to cut you short. I'm very sorry. We are out of time. If you want to talk to these wonderful people, come by at the seabass, which is currently on tour vaults, I think, correct? Yeah. Yeah, pointy black. And there's stickers and that these people and there's probably Marta and other stuff. So please drop by and please give, can't talk a lot and I eat punk another round of applause. Thank you very much.