Hi and welcome to my talk about tightly secure authenticated key exchange revisited. My name is Doreen Riepel and this is joint work with Tibor Jager, Ike Kils and Sven Schäger. An authenticated key exchange protocol or short AKE is used to establish a shared session key between two parties. This key can then be used with a symmetric encryption scheme to build a secure channel and encrypt further traffic. AKE is an important cryptographic building block and is widely used, for example in the TLS protocol. In this talk I will first define the security model for AKE and as we study tightly secure AKE I will define what tightness means. Then I will give some comparison to previous work. Coming to our contributions I will show how to build AKE from simpler building blocks in particular from key encapsulation mechanisms, short camps. While this construction has been studied before, our result here is to find the right security requirements for the camp to actually achieve tightness. I will also show an example instantiation of the camp at the end of my presentation. Let me now explain the AKE syntax and security model in more detail. We consider to users Alice and Bob and we give them both long term keys, consisting of a public key and a secret key, while the public keys are assumed to be known to everyone in the network. Now Alice wants to exchange a key with Bob. Therefore she computes some message MA which he sends over to Bob. At the same time she holds some additional secret information which is different from the long term secrets and which we call the state of Alice. The state contains all ephemeral information that is necessary to derive the session key later. In our model we are focusing on two message protocols where each party sends and receives only one message. That means when Bob receives Alice's message he can directly compute the shared session key. He also computes some response MV which he sends to Alice. Note here that Bob does not need to store any ephemeral information and thus he does not have a state. When Alice receives Bob's message she can use her state and long term key to compute the same session key. Correctness of the protocol tells us that those keys are really the same as long as both users receive the messages that the other user has sent. But now when looking at the security of an AKE protocol we also consider an adversary Eve and we put Eve in between the interaction. I will explain the capabilities of Eve now one after another. First she controls the message flows. That means she can drop, modify or inject messages. For example instead of forwarding Bob's message Eve sends another message MV. As a result Alice will either reject the message in case she finds out that there is something wrong with it or at least she will compute a different session key. In the best case we still want some security properties for the key which I will explain later. We also want to give Eve access to some secret information so as long as Alice had not received Bob's response yet she can reveal Alice's secret state. But we do not only want to give her access to ephemeral secrets but also to the long-term secrets and in this example here Eve corrupts Bob's long-term key which means she can impersonate Bob and send messages on his behalf. She can also see how other users react on that. And finally Eve can also reveal session keys of her choice so she can decide to obtain the key that Bob computed and may try to retrieve some other information about Bob. Summing out of this picture and modeling the real world we do not only have two users but we have many users and many sessions. As an example here we add Carol and Dave to the network. Carol has already established a key with Alice and one with Dave and Dave also holds the same key with Carol. In this experiment we model security with a so-called challenge oracle. Eve can make multiple queries to this challenge oracles or session keys of her choice. Let's assume she first challenges the session between Alice and Bob. That means she will either get the real session key or random key. Then she challenges Alice and Carol's key and again will either receive the real session key or random key. The same happens for the session between Carol and Dave. In answering these challenge queries now there are two different ways to model this in the experiment. The first scenario we have multiple challenge bits, one for each challenge. For example the first bit is zero so Eve receives the real key. The second bit is one so she receives the random key and the third bit is also one. In order to win Eve must now find the bit for one particular challenge. She can choose for example the second challenge and she wins if she guesses B2 correctly. Now consider a different scenario where we only have one challenge bit. That means if the challenge bit is zero Eve will always get the real session keys when she makes a challenge query. And if the bit is one she will always receive random keys. And of course the goal is now to guess the bit B correctly. Both models have been used in the literature before but I will tell you now why we believe that the single bit model is more useful. First this notion is actually well established when it comes to multi-challenge security definitions for example in standard public key encryption. The reason for that is that it is tightly equivalent to so-called real or random security definitions which are mostly used in composition theorems. We don't want to use AKEs as a standard along primitive but we want to compose it with a symmetric encryption scheme. And when doing so we want all challenge keys to be random at the same time and not only one. And this is exactly what the single challenge bit model gives us. Apart from that our security model captures all properties we want to have on AKE protocol. These properties are also formalized in the CK plus model. In particular we show forward secrecy which says that an adversary cannot distinguish the session key of a challenge even if both long term keys are corrupted after the session key is computed. Resistance to key compromise impersonation attacks or short KCI means that given a long term secret the adversary cannot impersonate some other honest user in order to fool the owner of the corrupted secret key. The third property is resistance to maximal exposure attacks and it says that the adversary cannot distinguish the challenge key even when given some combination of secret information that do not trivially leak the session key. An example here is that we allow the adversary to reveal the state of the initiator and the long term key of the responder. I already mentioned the word tightness a few times which brings me to some definitions about provable security. The AKE security experiment I just explained is played as a game between a challenger and an adversary. We prove security by contradiction using a security reduction. That is we assume that there exists an adversary A against our cryptographic scheme in this case the AKE protocol and we use A to build an adversary B against a computationally hard problem. However, we believe that this problem is hard to solve so such an adversary A against our scheme cannot exist. We now call a security reduction tight if A and B have about the same advantage in running time. And what I mean with about the same is that they only differ in a constant factor. In particular for AKE they should not depend on the number of users or the number of sessions. This tells us how to choose system parameters correctly. In fact only a tight proof allows us to implement the protocol theoretically sound. Given a non tight proof one should think about increasing the system parameters for example the size of elliptic curve groups. Before coming to the details of our results I want to give a short comparison to previous work. The first tightly secure AKE was proposed by Bader et al at TCC 2015. They focused on the standard model but did not consider state reveals. They introduced and proved the security in the multi-challenge bid security model and not the single bid one. At Crypto 2018 Yustin and Jagger proposed a variant of the scientific Herman protocol in the random oracle model which allows them to get a tight proof. In their work they also do not consider state reveals and they also use the multi-challenge bid model. One year later at Crypto, Gunn-Garden et al provide very practical and efficient if the Herman protocols also in the random oracle model. They are the first to use the single-challenge bid model however their proof is not tight. It loses a factor which is linear in the number of users. They also show that this loss is inherent to many protocols and in fact our work bypasses their impossibility result. There was another work in between. The Yustin et al presented a tightly secure AKE and the standard model at Asia Crypt 2020. However they did not capture state reveals and they also focused again on the multi-challenge bid model which brings us to our work. Three proposed tight AKE protocols in the random oracle model and focusing on a stronger security model capturing state reveals. In particular we also prove all our results in the more useful single-challenge bid model. So let's dive a bit more into details. Our protocol is a generic construction of basic cryptographic building blocks. Our first protocol is built solely from chems. It is widely known that this yields an AKE protocol with implicit authentication. However, tightness of this construction was never considered before. We show how to instantiate such a chem with hash proof systems. We also look at a second construction which uses an additional signature scheme and a MAC and this yields an AKE protocol with explicit authentication. For the rest of my talk I will focus on the first construction and in particular I want to study the question what security properties we actually need for the chem in order to get a tight security proof. Before giving an answer let's look at the protocol itself. In total the protocol uses three chem instances, a long-term chem for each user to ensure authentication and then a femoral chem to ensure forward secrecy. But one after another, let us start with the ephemeral chem which we mark with a tilde. Alice, the initiator of the protocol, draws a fresh key pair and sends the ephemeral public key to Bob. Bob runs the NCAPS algorithm to encapsulate a key k tilde. He sends the ciphertext back to Alice so that she can compute the same key. In order to do so she needs to store the ephemeral secret key until she receives Bob's message. That is what is stored inside the state. Now we add another chem instance to authenticate Alice. Alice keeps the public and secret key as a long-term key pair. Bob, knowing Alice's public key, can now encapsulate a key kb and sends the ciphertext to Alice. And Alice can compute the same key using her secret key. We do the same on Bob's side. He gets some long-term key pair, Alice encapsulates a key ka to Bob's public key and sends the ciphertext over. In order to derive the final session key Alice must also store ka inside her state. Now we have three intermediate chem keys ka, kb and k tilde, which are all hashed together along with public session information to derive the actual session key. What we then did was to extract the exact security properties we need from the chem. When considering tightness one can prove security by simply guessing the challenge session and then one can simulate the other sessions quite simple. This normally results in a quadratic security loss, so we want to avoid discussing techniques. Now remember that in the ake security experiment, the adversary can adaptively corrupt users. So considering that we do not know the users that will be challenged, we need to be able to output the long-term secrets keys for all users. The long-term keys in our protocol are the chem secret keys ska and skb. Also as all of this happens adaptively, we do not know if the secret key that decrypts the ciphertext will be leaked at some point. So in the end all ciphertexts must decrypt correctly. Something related to this is that ciphertext can be either part of a query where the session key is revealed later or where the session key is challenged. But we do not know which of the two will happen. So we need some special property here to embed challenges in all sessions but also explain revealed keys afterwards. At another point for review queries is that we consider an active adversary. So the adversary can come up with the ciphertext computed by itself and then it can reveal the session key as well. But it knows the session key. So we need to be able to simulate this key correctly, which means that we need some decryption ability like in a CCA security definition. Similar to previous work, we also add another dimension of reveal queries, namely the state reveals. This makes things even more complicated, but it turns out that the properties are quite similar to those of the long term chem. On a state reveal query, the ephemeral secret key is leaked. This is the key I called sk tilde in the protocol. So we need some corruption ability here again. And what we also need is we want key in distinguishability even when the state is compromised. In taking all these properties together, it turns out that we need some quite strong security notion. In fact, we came up with the definition of non-committing key encapsulation where the term non-committing reflects the ability to first send out a challenge ciphertext, but then still use it to explain a revealed session key in case it is not part of a challenge. And I will show you now an instantiation of the chem, and this should hopefully become clearer then. As I mentioned before, we generically built such a chem from hash proof systems. But here I want to keep it simple and will directly show the instantiation from the decision of the Fihalman assumption, which is then similar to the Kramerschup encryption scheme. Therefore, we fix a group G of prime order P and a generator G. We also compute a second group element H, which is G to the power of some random exponent omega. We call this the public parameter. Now the key generation algorithm picks two elements x0 and x1 randomly as the secret key and computes the public key as G to the x0 multiplied by H to the x1. The encapsulation algorithm takes as input a public key. It chooses a random exponent r and the ciphertext consists of two elements where C0 is G to the r and C1 is H to the r. The key is derived using an additional hash function which inputs the public values like the public key and the ciphertext to bind them to the key and the actual secret value which is the public key to the power of r. Note that the ciphertext is now a ddh tuple or in other words it's an element in the ddh language. We call r the witness and knowing the witness the sander can compute the key. Decapsulation does not need to know the witness but it uses the secret key to derive the same key by simply taking the first ciphertext element to the power of x0 multiplied by the second ciphertext element to the power of x1. So far this looks like a normal cam but what we need now is to ensure the non-committing property of ciphertexts and this is where the magic happens. We define an additional algorithm that computes simulated ciphertexts and keys. We call this algorithm SIMNCAPs and it inputs the secret key. As opposed to the normal NCAPs algorithm the simulator now picks a second random exponent rs and computes the second part of the ciphertext as h to the power of s. The key is then computed as in the decapsulation algorithm using x0 and x1. Note that we don't have a witness anymore as the ciphertext is no longer a ddh tuple. Now what we can show is that the output of these two algorithms NCAPs and SIMNCAPs are computationally indistinguishable and this is based on the ddh assumption. The nice thing here is that this holds even if the secret key is corrupted. So in the simulation of our ake experiment we can just always use the simulated ciphertext and we do not need to care about whether the secret key is corrupted afterwards. Looking at the CAM key now we can show that the secret value z0 to the x0 times c1 to the x1 is information theoretically hidden from the adversary as long as it doesn't know the secret key. So keys are statistically indistinguishable from random keys and here the hash function which is modeled as a RAM oracle ensures that this holds for many challenge keys even as some of the other keys are revealed. So this is the main building block of our CAM based ake. Let me now conclude the talk and sum up our contributions. We introduced the security definition of non-committing key encapsulation which is tailored to the security of our ake protocols. We show how to generically build such CAMs from hash proof systems in the random oracle model. And one example we have just seen is based on the decision of the Fihalman assumption. Using that notion we prove tight security of two different ake protocols where our first is built only from CAM and our second protocol uses an additional signature scheme. We are the first to consider tightness in a stronger security model with state reveals and we also revisit the definition of a multi-challenged security notion. In particular we use the variant with a single challenge bit which is useful as it tightly composes the ake protocol with a symmetric primitive. As our work relies on the properties of the random oracle the natural question is if similar techniques are also possible in the standard model and at this point I want to mention our follow up work where we join forces with some more researchers to construct tightly secure ake and signatures in the standard model. If you are interested that paper was already presented at crypto this year. For more details on this work please check out our paper on ePrint. That's it and thank you for listening.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com. Happy Thursday coming at you with 2012-2013 Panini Timeless Treasures Basketball 4 box. Random team break number 4. Yes, we are really giving away that much money if a Kobe auto is pulled, even if it's a redemption. We'll still give away the money. It's pretty nice. And remember all the Kobe packs will go to the Lakers spot. It's a lot. Winner take all on that as well. Alright, some great stuff. Big thanks to this group of people for selling this out. I appreciate it. Thank you to the teams for existing. We appreciate that too. Let's roll it in the random minds. Names and teams 5 and a 6, 11 times. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 11 the final time. After 11, we've got Jaden all the way down to Chris. 5 and a 6, 11 times for the teams. 1, 2, 3, and 11 the final time. Good luck. We've got the Grizzlies down to the Thunder. And Dimitri with the Lakers. There you go, Dimitrios. Lakers in the number 2 spot right there. Good luck. Alright, Jaden with the Grizzlies. Dimitrios with the Lakers. Jeffrey with the Nets. Don with the Pistons. Derek with the Rockets. Don with Boston. Nicholas with Golden State. Igor with the Toronto Raptors. Dimitrios with the Knicks. Igor with the Timberwolves. Bradley with the Kings. Tom with the Magic. Don with the Spurs. Sarah with the Nuggets. Oliver with the Heat. Don with Milwaukee. Dimitrios with the Bulls. Nicholas with the Cavs. Joshua with the Sixers. Tom with the Pelicans. Actually New Orleans stuff. We'll go to New Orleans. We're going by city. So New Orleans, we'll go to New Orleans. Charlotte will go to Charlotte. We're not going by those team names. Dimitrios with the Trailblazers. Tom with the Clippers. Chris with the Suns. Don with the Jazz Aaron with the Pacers. Jaden with the Mavs. Dimitrios with the Hawks. Dustin with the Wizards. Tom with Charlotte. And Chris with the Thunder. Alright, let's sort by column B. Aaron hit his own team. The Pacers. There you go. And he's a Pacers fan too. That's pretty lucky. In a random team break. Two different random team breaks. Alright, while you're considering trades, let's consider which set of boxes we're going to do. So we opened up that inner case the other day, or yesterday, the other day. It was just yesterday. So you can see on the top camera there's four boxes on the right side, four boxes on the left side. We're going to roll, we're going to select a die. We're going to select that die right there. And we're going to roll it one, two, three for the left side, four, five, six for the right side. And it's going to be four. One, two, three, four, five, six. So this side, we will save for break five, which is our final timeless treasures break. So we'll mark that all with Sharpie right there. Alright, random T five, random T five. It's already in the store. So if you want to run this back, we can do it tonight. I'll leave it on my back table here. Alright, so now I'm going to pause the video. We're going to see if there's any trades, and then we'll have the break. Stick around. I'll be right back. Alright, welcome back everybody. A little bit of trade chatter, but in the end no deals were done here in this four box break. Thanks everyone for getting in. The final four boxes are already in the store on jaspyscase breaks.com. So let's run that back tonight. Good luck. These two cards are base cards, and then a hit on the bottom. I think so. Alright. Base cards, man. Alright. There's George. We were just talking about George Hill during the trade window. There's George Hill, J.J. Barré and Nay Robinson. There's a Kobe Bryant right there. He reveals a John Paxson. Timeless signatures. That's for Chicago Dimitrios with the bowls. 49 out of 1.99. Remember, once again, public service announced, but there is a top loader shortage. So we're having to use bigger top loaders for thinner cards, but we are putting blue painter's tape right up there so it doesn't rattle around during shipping. Just be careful if you're moving the blue tape or something like that. Alright. Behind Kobe is Glass Rookie Lance Thomas for Charlotte. Or I'm sorry, New Orleans. That's right. See, that's why I confused. That's why I said we go by city. New Orleans with that 171 to 499. That'll be for Tom and Nolans. And behind Kobe is Paul Pierce and Carmelo Anthony Revolution Materials. Get it? Because it does that. 25 out of 75. So that'll be a randomizer between the Celtics and the Knicks unless they're the same person. Don with the Celtics, Dimitrios with the Knicks. So we'll randomize that at the end. Top loader here flying around. Kobe Bryant, of course, goes to the Lakers. Dimitrios with the Lakers. That's out of 25. Nice. Alright. And Dimitrios, you'll get all the cards in the Kobe pack as well. I know there's one instance where it actually has RIP Kobe. Look at all these moments here. I think there is like one or two, maybe one card in this set that actually has Charlotte on the back, but it's still Kobe Bryant. It'll still go to the Lakers. I know, right? It's a weird card, right? This is back in 2012. Things were crazy back in 2012. There's relics on both sides. I'm assuming the blue ones for Carmelo and Paul Pierce is this relic right here, the white jersey. They put a little spinny thing on there. They're figuring stuff out. I don't think they've ever done it since. Alright, there's a redemption. Now, I know the redemption is going to be expired, folks, but Panini is pretty good about getting you something back in return. There's Paul George. There is validating marks. Landry Fields for the Raptors. 87 out of 199. It's Igor with Toronto. On-card autograph behind Jason Kidd is Wesley Matthew Sr. It's 006 out of 199. That's for Portland. Dimitrios. And there's Jason Kidd right here. Take a look at the Kobe packs really quick. Sometimes these can be numbered as well. Alright, redemption is Darius Miller. Glass rookie autographs. Don't remember where Darius Miller goes. Do I have... Can I post that checklist? Maybe not. Darius Miller's rookie year was with second-round pick. 46th overall picked by New Orleans. Spent a couple seasons there before playing with the Iowa Energy. Then Brose Bamberg of Germany. Wow, played in Germany for a season. Couple seasons. Then came back to New Orleans and then played a season with the Thunder on April 8th, 2021. He was waved by the Thunder after 18 appearance. So he was in the league up until... What, five days ago? Alright, anyway. New Orleans with that one. So he was... People must have liked him. Must have been a nice glue guy.  Carved out a handful of years there. Alright, so that goes to New Orleans. That'll be for Tom. Like I said, Tom, talk to contact me. I think through the redemption process, they'll let you know that it's unfulfillable. They'll get you some points back in return or something like that. There's Meadow World Peace, Marcin Gortat, and behind Nicola Batoum, Ty Lawson, and Kawhi Leonard, Time to Shine autograph for the Spurs. Don McCrae with San Antonio. Nice. 28 out of 199. There you go. Congrats. Got Glass Rookie Chris Middleton. That's pretty nice too. Glass Rookie Autograph Chris Middleton. Detroit. Don McCrae with that one as well. Wow. Yep, that's Rookie Kawhi, by the way. 460 out of 499. I know. There was a George Hill card earlier. Aaron W, who's a big Pacers fan. Sorry for triggering bad memories here. Look away for a moment. Their draft rights were traded on that night. And the relic back here is Ivan Johnson, promising pros relic for Demetrius and the Hawks. Alright, the other Kobe Pack. Whoa, postered right here. Who's this guy? That's White Howard? Yeah, there's the story right here. RIP Kobe. Alright, final box. Good luck. Remember, if we find a Kobe of Bryant Autograph, even if it's a redemption, an expired redemption, if we find a Kobe of Bryant Autograph, that unlocks $824 of break credit. $824. Kobe, amount of break credit. So then we randomize everyone. Here's a redemption right here. If we randomize everybody's names and the name on top, winner take all. Monta Ellis, Darrell Arthur, behind Tyson Chandler, D Wade, and there's Harrison Barnes. Glass Rookie Autograph. That's pretty cool. Golden State, that'll be for Nicholas. $129 out of $4.99. Glass Rookie's Chris Joseph for the Celtics. That'll be for Don and Boston. $387 out of $4.99. And behind Tyson Chandler is Sean Elliott. Timeless signatures. Elliott. Elliott, I'll be right here. Sean Elliott, a spur? Well, he played with the spurs most of, I don't know, I might have to look this up. Must be spurs, right? Alright, it's not going to that one other random team that he played for. Let me just double check just because we're about accuracy here at Jaspies. Let's just take a look at the checklist. Only a few seconds of our time should be worth it. Yes, spurs. So that'll be for San Antonio. Don with the spurs. Again, the same disclaimer, just talk to Panini. I'm probably hooking up with some points if they can't hook you up with the card itself. Alright, nice break. Alright, Jay. Elliott. Alright, there you have it. A lot of nice Kobe cards for Demetrios and the Lakers. And let's do that randomizer. Let's go get some new dice right here. There's some new dice. And it's Paul Pierce Boston and Carmelo, New York Knicks. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it. Snake eyes. Two times. Team on top after two. Easy. One and two. Stays with Boston goes to Don. What a break for Don. There you go. And that spins around too. 25 out of 75. There you have it. I'm Joe for JaspiesCaseBreaks.com. The Kobe Autograph Hunt continues. I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye-bye.


So we have the ID TechX, so who are you? My name is Claire Ortiz and I have a clothing company in Los Angeles, California. We are a technology, fashion, design and innovation lab, all in one. We really work on bringing advanced technology to consumer wearables. And so this show is really interesting because it is sort of the future, so we're learning a lot. So how has it been? What have you been doing here the last couple of days? Oh my gosh, there's so much information to take in and for me it's kind of a non-traditional show. Most of the apparel industry is really going to the apparel industry textile shows where this is really about the next generation and with our project to bring wearable technology and real wearable technology, not battery packed and the Tesla of wearable technology to consumers. It's given me an opportunity to learn a lot about the opportunities to not only bring technology to the market but bring it to the market in a really commercialized way where people can afford it. Afford it? And Tesla is cool, right? But never need to charge. That would be nice. Energy harvesting, right? Exactly. So is it going to work? Well, energy harvesting as well as washable. Put it in the dryer. It doesn't have to plug in. Is it intuitive to the skin? Is it protective? Is it solar powered? Is it wireless? And at the end of the day, is it safe? And is it a need and not a want? Does it look good? It's always going to look good. Design is key. Design is absolutely key. So beautiful design handled. It's the intrinsic technology that has to be really dynamic. It needs to be hidden, right? Like the one over there, the leather jacket you wouldn't know that it's connected. The leather jacket, however, a leather jacket that has a battery inside of it. The way that we build product is think about anything that you would put on your body, would you put on your children? Is there a truly safe and organic way to use energy and technology? They're having their attention placed. The trade show will be closing in four minutes. So it's definitely a nice trade show. It's a very cool trade show. Is it cool, huh? So you had time to go to the sessions? I did, yeah. And we'll have, I mean, a lot of the better learning is the side conversations with people you don't even know you're going to meet. And then you go away thinking, well, I came in with an idea. I'm going to leave with an idea I hadn't thought about. And now I am, you know, I've leaped into the future. So a lot of good learning and a very short amount of time.


Hello there, everyone, and welcome. This is Melissa Armo with The Stock Swoosh, and I'm here to introduce the Valentine's Day Week Gap Options newsletter special. So it's earnings season. There's been lots and lots of trades on this newsletter so far for 2020. Some huge, huge calls by me. Nice call today in the Twitter and the Amazon, which I'm going to review here, which continue today. Continue today. So just some really big calls. And if you're somebody that doesn't have time to day trade actively money through Friday, the options are a way for you to make money in the market without having to be necessarily right at your desk for one hour, one and a half hours in the morning, Monday through Friday. Because when you're doing the day trades, you have to be there in the room. And you have to be watching things. The options trades, you can put the trade on. And sometimes they go in the day. Sometimes you can hold them overnight, but it's not where you have to lean on your keyboard watching it. If you have any questions, you can email me on the list at thestockswish.com or call me at 929-3200 Gap. Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or Skype. So happy Valentine's Day, everyone. Couple of days, Fridays, Valentine's Day. It's going to be jam-packed at restaurants and bars in New York City Friday night, whether we'll see. We're supposed to get rained every day this week, which would be snow if it was colder. So looking forward to Valentine's Day. It's a fun night to go out, even if you're single. So I'm doing a Valentine's Day week offer, which is you get the Gap Options newsletter through the end of the year. All the trades for the rest of 2020 for me for the Options Calls and the Options Course, which is February 24th, 11 to 2. I'd say 11 to 3. Sometimes we go over. Special price for this is $49.99. This is a great deal. Normally the letter is $59.99 for the year. And normally the class is $2,500 just for the course. This ends Valentine's Day at midnight. So if you've been thinking about signing up, it's a good way to jump in. Email me and Melissa at thestockswish.com if you'd like to sign up. And you want to get in and the sooner you sign up, the sooner you're going to get the next tomorrow street. So very interesting because this was Amazon on Friday. And then it had a big pop-up. Then here's where it was today. This is in the pre-market. This was 9.24 in the pre-market today. This stock went up. It made a brand new wall to him high. It ran almost 100 points through the strike. I will show you what I called. I called the Amazon 2040 strikes. Think the last time was 2133. It's almost 100 points through this strike. And it's got a week left. Now I thought last week on Friday because of the big move and the breakout was a great, great exit. And it was a profitable exit. It was the same exit going to a weekend. Let this continue. Huge trade for the people that held it. But a huge trade even if you didn't hold it. Anyways, long story short, here was the Amazon. If you did three contracts, this is selling at Friday. You could have made 9,900. Now again, if you sold this today, it was even bigger. But this is more than 100% return in investment, which is why I thought Friday was a good placement. If you did one contract, you could have made 3,300. Again, usually looking for 50% to 100% return investment. This was more than 100% return investment. I didn't look at what these were today. I know it was really super-duper big though. One, because it's got a week left. Two, because it ran up and made a new high. And three, because it went, again, like I said, almost 100 points through this strike. So just a phenomenal fact. Let me see if I can pull this up really quick just to show you. Oh, look at this market. Wow, what a nice read on this market. Okay, let me just see if I can see that there. That's Amazon today, look at that. And again, I thought this was a great exit. And it really was a good solid exit. But look at what this did today. 2133, yep. Yeah, it's 402. So anyways, what a great call. So I called this trade here. Called it on the fourth. Pretty sure I called it on the fourth. Yeah, called it on the fourth. And so my ability to do that, to see when things are going to have a move, a momentum move, a move to profit is something that I'm very skilled at. It's a reason to sign up for my options newsletter, sign up for the class, sign up for the Golden Gate where you learn how I make these picks like Amazon. I'm very good at reading price action. So here was the trade, again, beautiful move. So if you've been thinking about trading and you want a way to make extra money or you want to ease into the day trading, this is something for yourself. When you're investing in yourself, you're loving yourself. A lot of times we love other people, but we forget to love ourselves. You got to love yourself. Loving yourself means taking care of yourself financially. It means really, really, really, truly loving yourself enough to invest in yourself and your future and your financial future. So think about this. The Valentine's Day we got there. If you want to trade for a living, you can do it. You can learn how to do it from me. You can do it from home. And again, you could be in an office and manage the options trades. My main class where I teach how I make the picks in the gaps is coming up end of the month, February 29th and March 1st. So the main class is called the Golden Gate course. That class is 69.99. The tuition combo for both the trends and the Golden Gate is 74.99. And the trends is March 3rd, 11 to 2. So you can sign up for this class and get in and start trading. But 2020 is here. Whether you want to do options, whether you want to learn the system, whether you want to do day trades, I've just been doing extremely well this year. So 2020 has been big and it's not even two months into the year. So if you're interested in more information, you can reach out. I do not have any trials for the gap options newsletter. So please don't ask. I do have a trial for the trading room, but I don't call the options in the trading room. I do call the day trades live in the trading room, which the entry and the stop and the exit. And if you want to take the Golden Gate course, then you will be eligible to join the live room. I am doing an open house this week. If you want to come, email me and Melissa at thestockswish.com for more information. Have a great, fantastic day, everyone.


A new war may start in Europe. The current escalation of tensions in the partially-recognized Kosovo may be resolved peacefully if the West puts pressure on Pristina while Kosovo fulfills two conditions, creating Serbian municipalities in accordance with the 2013 Brussels Agreement and releasing an illegally-detained policeman Dijon Panty. Serbian politicians and experts told Russian Izvestia. This time, the situation began to escalate after Kosovo's special forces occupied the Republic's Serbian-populated region and barricades went up in Kosovo's northern zone. Given the flare-up, Belgrade is planning to deploy its own troops there in accordance with the UN Security Council's resolution. However, NATO is unlikely to approve this decision. We will try to send our military and police to Kosovo, but we know that NATO will never approve of this. Head of the Serbian Permanent Mission to NATO's Parliamentary Assembly, Vladimir Dukanovic told Izvestia. Program coordinator at the Russian International Affairs Council, Lazovic, concurs. In his opinion, this move won't be in the West's interest since it supports Pristina and simultaneously serves as a guarantor of a peaceful resolution to the Serbia-Kosovo conflict. If Belgrade continues to bring its troops to the region, this will be a direct confrontation and an armed conflict. This Kosovo Albanians won't cease their incitement, he explained. Additionally, this will be a failure of Western policy. That said, the West, particularly Washington, is confident that the conflict can be settled if Serbia recognizes Kosovo's independence. Belgrade is under a lot of pressure over this issue. Jovan Palalic, head of the Committee on Constitutional and Legislative Issues at the National Assembly of Serbia, told the newspaper. However, the Serbian authorities will never agree to this. Meanwhile, pauses between the rounds of escalation in the region are becoming shorter while tensions only accumulate. There is a high probability that such provocations in the end will morph into a local armed conflict. Lazovic concluded.


OK, for this problem, 3.15. We do more or less the same thing as the last house, except this house is in Anchorage, Alaska, where HDD happens to be 11,000 degree days. OK? Now, we have to calculate here heat loss through windows, through walls, and through roof to calculate the total heat loss from the house, the same way that we have done before. Heat loss through windows, we need the area of the windows first. So area of windows equal to each window is 4 feet by 6 feet. So this is 24 square feet. So we have six of them. So the total area is 144 square feet. So heat loss equal to 144 feet square times HDD's 11,000 degree days times 24 hours in a day and divided by r value. r value happens to be 1. So 1 feet square degrees Fahrenheit hour over BTU. So if we cancel out some of these, we will get BTU's heat loss. This is in a year, OK? So we would get this one to be approximately 38 million, 38 million 16,000 BTUs. This is per season or per year, OK? Now, second thing that we have to do is walls. Here, we have to calculate the area and also the r value. r value, because it is a composite wall consisting of four layers. It has wood siding, which has an r value of 0.81 and 2 inches of polyurethane. And 2 times 6.25, so that is 12.5 r value. And we have a third layer of four inches of fiberglass. Four inches times 3.7. That's equal to 14.8. And then we also have half inch of drywall. And we know that the drywall r value is straight away point is 4.5. So now, the total r value of this wall happens to be 28.56, OK? Now, we have to calculate the area of the walls. Area of the walls, we can calculate. Let me draw a little picture here and show you if we have. So let's say this is the area. And we have, and this side is about 70. This side is 50. And we will have another 50 this side and another 70 this side. So total times this height is 8 feet. So the total area would be 2 times 120. 120 is 70 plus 50 times 2, because twice these values times 8 feet is the height. So we get about 1,920 feet squared. Of course, this also has some windows, about six windows, as we originally looked at. But at this point, we will take this as 1920 and subtracting windows from this. Windows is 144 feet squared. So 1,920 minus 144 would give us 17,76 feet squared, OK? So now, we have to calculate the area of. Now, if we calculate the area of 1776 feet squared times 11,000 times, this is degrees Fahrenheit days, times 24 hours per day divided by we have 28.56. So the heat loss in here comes out to be 16,416,806 BTUs per year. OK, now we have to calculate roof. Roof happens to be 1.1 times the area of the walls. Area of the walls was 1920 feet squared. Again, we have to take this without the windows. Actual area of the walls times 1.1, that happens to be 21,2112 feet squared. So heat loss, 2112 feet squared times 11,000 times 24 divided by R value of this is 30 degrees Fahrenheit feet squared hour over BTU. So this comes out to be 18,585,600 BTUs per year. So the total heat loss now would be addition of all these three together. So that is, first, we have how much? If we look at, we have 38,016,000. So 38,016,000 plus 16,416,806 plus 18,585,600. So that is equal to, so 73,019,000 BTUs. So that is the total heat loss from the house.


I ran through a hallway and in front of me there was a nurse and between us this giant plastic box with a small human being inside and we ran past corners and through doors and down an elevator and through more corners and in and bang through a door and come into the neonatal intensive care unit where a horde of nurses descended on us and started asking questions. Morton, he needs an IV right now. He needs to have a feeding tube inserted. He needs all these things. You need to make decisions right now and I stood there and my hands were shaking and I was looking down into this box of this person that we had just emerged into the world five weeks too soon and all I could think was I have questions. What is this? What are the consequences of every action I make now? How do these people come to these decisions about what needs to be done? Who are they? Like what are their values? How do I trust them and why are they doing this and not something else? And these questions stand at the center of everything. We are at the 20 years into this enormous social experiment that was started by accident that created this entire new world of communication and an entire new method of talking to people and sending information around and it's amazing. It allows us to share our ideas and our dreams and our creations with everyone all around the world. There are no limitations to it and it's scary because it allows us to mislead, to manipulate, to destroy people, ideas, democracies, all of this just because of this little thing and now what we have to think about is how not to destroy the world. So I was at a conference a month ago where a large tech company demonstrated some fancy technology that could call you and pretend to be a human and we were sitting in the audience and I remember there were people that were very excited because this is a technological breakthrough and then there were other people that were saying I don't know this doesn't feel right at all but I don't know what to do about this and it got me thinking because we have one of those thermos cans in our house and all the things you can talk to that talk back to you. Google turn on the light. Alexa buy me more diapers. The thing is those things are connected to services that know a lot about us and I started thinking like if you have enough information you should be able to do interesting things with it. For example I am certain that right now there's a tech company that's trying to figure out how I can collect all the data that sits on your phone and that you put on to all social media networks and that you share with your connected devices. Look at that data and look at how it changes and detect whether or not you're moving into a dark space. And what happens if technology can detect that? What happens if technology can actually tell before you can that you're entering into depression or something else? And should that technology then step up and try to do something about it? What if your device could diagnose the emergence of clinical depression? It's not like this isn't being done in other fields. I mean how many of you have a thing on your arm that counts how many steps you take? Those things are used not only to count how many steps you take but they're trying to figure out how people move and how that impacts their health. And these companies are already using that technology to try to detect diseases that may occur or something else. Facebook has an AI that detects whether people are merging into suicidal thoughts that actually runs on Facebook. So if you go far enough it'll start talking to you and try to point you in directions of things. And all this is happening and I was thinking this depression thing would probably happen at some point. Someone's going to do this. And then right after I had this idea and I made the slide and everything the story of the Google selfish ledger came out. I don't know if you've heard about this. This was an idea that someone from Google came up with a couple of years ago where they were saying what if we took all the information we have about someone and we tried to guide society based on it and to better things. And in that video the person says as cycles of collection and comparison extend it may be possible to develop a species level understanding of complex issues such as depression, health, and poverty. It's one of those horrible serendipitous moments where you're like I have an idea. I think that's terrible. Oh no someone also thought about it before and they actually have the ability to do it. I am certain you've all been here in the last couple of years. You see these things happening in your society, in your field and everywhere and you go this doesn't feel right but I don't know how to articulate this. And because I don't know how to articulate it I can't take it anywhere. I can't do anything about it. If you look at media now you just search for the word ethics and you will be bombarded with news stories about tech companies doing things that turn out to cause ethical problems. And every time you read one of those stories you're like yeah this is an issue and that's an issue that's definitely an issue but you didn't really know that until someone pointed it out. And once you know it you go how do I avoid this problem? How do I not become part of this? And then you say hmm you know there are some smart people that are thinking about this I mean there's Mike Montero he's published a designer's code of ethics and there's like a Hippocratic oath for tech workers and universities are teaching classes on CS ethics and there's things like the GDPR which is a response to a lack of ethics in our communities so it's being forced upon us by governments. And all of this is trying to basically solve problems that we haven't solved on our own. So we just want to build great tools for the web. And we thought we were doing great things that would really change everything and then the reality comes down on us that a lot of the stuff that we've been doing inadvertently cost things we didn't need and didn't want and didn't intend at all. So how do I know if I'm doing the right thing? I should put a caveat and say don't I'm not very like I'm not a paragon of good ideas here but there are ways we can judge our actions and figure out how to do the right thing and those things are enveloped in this concept called ethics. So that's what I want to talk to you about. How do we judge whether what we do is good or bad right or wrong in a way that we can use? This comes to this old philosophical concept of ethics. Ethics are rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good or bad and that immediately makes you ask what is morals and then you can discover morals are things concerning or related to what is right and wrong in human behavior and you're like okay so that sounds like the same thing and then you get a definition like this that literally says ethics are the signs of morals and morals are the practice of ethics. Thank you philosophy for your horrible ambiguity but there's a point to this. We use ethics to quantify and put into a system the moral ideas we have so that we can use them in our everyday practice. So we have beliefs about what is right or wrong but we need to make a system so that other people can agree with those ideas and so we can use those ideas to further mankind and further ourselves and that's where ethics comes in. So if we talk about design ethics we would end up with something like design ethics are rules of behavior based on ideas about what design is morally good or bad and there are also tools to help make and explain moral judgments about design decisions. Nice and heavy right good for the end of the day. So what if your device could diagnose the emergence of clinical depression? You get this question someone at some point in time is going to ask you this. What is your response? Well I have some questions that we need to discuss first and those questions are what who and why and these questions map to this very old idea that Aristotle had thousands of years ago that all decisions and all judgments are based on these four core principles. They are the material costs the thing that action that the thing is built up. They are the formal costs what was used to build it. They are the efficient costs the person that built it and are and they are the final cost the reason why it was built to begin with and we take these four causes and map them to questions we end up with what are the consequences? How do we uptold our duty of care when we make decisions? Who do we become by doing it and why are we doing it in the first place? Keep these in mind and we'll go through them. So what are the consequences? Whenever you make a decision you always have to think about the consequences. When you don't weird stuff happens. So Genevue used Strava the running app that tracks where you're running. There's a ton of these apps. Strava is one of them and earlier this year they released this really fancy interactive website where they showed heat maps of where people run around the world and it looked amazing and everyone went in and started searching like oh can I see myself running in here I did that and it's kind of neat but when you release that kind of information there's a chance someone might use that information for things you didn't intend. For example turns out a lot of military staff in the United States Army who are abroad on operation wear trackers and figure out where they're going. So Strava inadvertently published maps of where military installations are in the desert in countries where people are having operations. Not exactly what was intended but in hindsight obvious. There's a consequence to doing this and it wasn't thought through properly. This is about consequentialism this old theory of morality that says that morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences. So you say an action is good or bad based on what the outcome is alone. So it doesn't matter what you intended if the outcome is good the act was good and there's a variety of this called utilitarianism that specifically says that an action is right if the outcome is useful for the majority of people. Sound familiar? That is literally how we design software. So consequentialism this old philosophical theory is the baseline of open-source software. You know that thing the 80-20 principle designed for the 80 percent to hell with the rest. That's the official definition of 80-20 by the way. Design for the majority is the thing we talk about all the time and the question I would ask as philosopher immediately is who defines that majority and what about the rest? This is the problem with consequentialism and this is the problem with ethics in general that you know when someone comes to you and says I have an ethical theory you can use to do this. There's this challenge that ethics tries to define a specific way of thinking about a problem and then there are all these edge cases that don't work. So in consequentialism thinking about the consequences of reactions are great but it results in excluding people. So the idea of consequentialism is you map out all the consequences in advance so you can move around them and come out with good decisions while in reality the way we approach the world with consequentialism is to say hey there are all these problems I'm not sure we can fix them and then you smash into every single one of the problems and end up somewhere you weren't intending. Unfortunately and that's what you see all these new stories about right when Facebook opened up their API so that people could use their data to do things they didn't intend for Cambridge Analytica to start skewing elections in the United States or other countries right that wasn't the intent but because they didn't think of the possibility that that might have happened it happened and then they have to answer for it. The GDPR is the response to us doing this. The GDPR is literally saying you had your chance to do this right but you messed up so we're just gonna shut down your playground and control it that's what it is. So how do we use consequentialism to actually make better decisions in design? Well there are four things you can ask what are the consequences of every design decision you make? Does this improve the common good of those affected? How do we measure the utility of our actions? And finally who decides what users matter and why? These are the questions you bring up in the design team meeting to make sure you're thinking about the consequences. Which brings us to number two how do we uphold our duty of care? Every time we make a decision we're making decisions on behalf of other people and we have a duty to those people to make sure that our decisions don't harm them in some way. Sometimes people make interesting decisions that have unintended consequences and that obviously could harm people like a research project on whether or not you can determine the sexual orientation of people based on their photos which is an interesting academic exercise but has obvious negative consequences that should have been considered before the research paper was published and everyone was told that this is possible. The same goes when you know a company decides to use facial recognition for things because it's cool and then another government buys the technology and uses it to detect people who might have committed crimes ages ago in crowds. So duty ethics allows us to think about how the acts we perform impact the world in terms of defining what is now normal and what is acceptable behavior. It's based around this idea of the categorical imperative which has this very clunky definition act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. Wonderful text. So it basically means act in the way you'd want every other person to act in the same situation.  Do the thing you want every other person to do. So the rightness of an act according to the ontology or duty ethics is judged by whether or not it's done to the duty of that principle as a whole. So you're not just acting in a way because you want people to act like that. It's because you believe that that's how people should act and you believe everyone should do this. So you do the right thing because your action sets a precedence and you believe that it's your duty to do the right thing so that your action sets a precedence and then it just continues in that circle endlessly. This brings us to that duty of care principle which is you are responsible not only for what you put into the world but what it does to the world and its people. Something that when you start thinking about it changes a lot of the conversation. I mean when all these tech giants are now going out in media and saying, you know, Facebook was designed to be addictive when I worked there. Or, you know, you don't realize but you're being programmed by the thing I built or my favorite, I'll quote from a newspaper article here. Justin Rothstein has tweaked his laptop operating system to block Reddit banned himself from Snapchat which he compares to heroin and imposed limits on his use of Facebook. He was particularly aware of the allure of Facebook likes which he describes as bright things of pseudo pleasure that can be as hollow and seductive as something else because he's the one that created the like button. So the guy that made the thing that we're all addicted to is like it's addictive so I don't use it. That's great but you said a precedence that says we should have like buttons on everything. So how do we use this? Once we know that there's an ethical theory that says we have a duty of care to things, how do we actually use this to further our own agendas? We say what norms are established when we make decisions? What do we say to other people about what they can do? What duties of care do we have and how do we uphold them? And should every other person or company in this position do the same thing I'm currently doing now? If you can't answer that then maybe you shouldn't be doing it. Which brings us to the third question, who do we become by doing this? This is probably the hardest one to understand unless you set it into some sort of context. So you may remember a couple of years ago there was an incident in the United States where Apple was asked to hack iPhones to provide access to their phones. Apple said we are not doing this, not because we don't believe it's important to find out what happened here, but because if we hack this one iPhone, we have set a precedence for every other iPhone to get hacked as well and we can't do that. That was done on principle, not on in this particular case or anything else. This is what's called virtue ethics. And in virtue ethics we say we want to judge acts based on what they do to the actor's character. So when I do something it changes me. And my actions should be judged based on whether or not my actions make me a better person. So what's a better person? Well, it depends on who you ask, which is what makes it tricky. But we can kind of cheat our way into this by saying I think I know what I want to become. So I'm going to model the behavior of the person I want to be, otherwise known as fake it till you become it. And it turns out that's actually a very effective way of making better decisions. If you always think, will I be comfortable in two years when I look back and think about the decision I just made? What about 10 years from now? Is this still comfortable to me? Do I become the person I want to be by making this decision? I mean Aristotle had this list of virtues that he was like, these are the things that we should adhere to. And some of them make sense.  Today, we have philosophers that are trying to make other lists of virtues. Shannon Valer has made a list of virtues that are called the techno moral virtues, which are honesty and self control and humility and justice and all these other stuff. And that sounds great, but it's very grandiose and everything. A better example of current virtues that we actually use and we aspire to are these designer codes of ethics and these Hippocratic oaths for people who work in tech and stuff like that because they specify the type of people we want to be. And you can even read it in these texts. It says things like, a designer is first and foremost a human being. A designer is responsible for the work they put into the world. A designer values impact or reform. A designer takes time for self reflection. I mean, these are virtues that we can aspire to. And if you adopt that kind of mentality, then you automatically have a way of judging your own decisions. If this feels a little foreign, Fred Meyer from WP Shout has made something very similar. He calls it the small business WordPress developer code of honor, where he says things like, I will not mislead my clients. I will treat my clients with respect. They seem like a little bit obvious, but the reality is unless we agree with ourselves that that's what we're going to do, there is a line somewhere that we haven't defined that we might accidentally cross. The GPL is a great example of our traffic that we all aspire to in this room. The GPL specifically says, I believe all people should be able to use this software and create from it whatever they want. And I'll build that in as a requirement. Matt talked about that a couple of hours ago here on the stage. This idea that no one can buy it, no one can do anything with it unless they want to. There are lots of examples of this. Accessibility is another example. When a Norwegian designer named Ida Ol wanted to build accessibility into everything, she said, to me and the rest of the team I work with, accessibility is simply the right thing to do. I believe accessibility is the right thing to do, so that's why we do it. And to do all this, we ask ourselves, what person or company do we become by doing this? Any act? What behaviors are we modeling for others and for ourselves? And what virtues do we believe in and promote? So then we have consequences. What happened when we did something? We have deontology or duty ethics. What kind of duties of care do we have? And finally we have virtues. What do we become? Which leaves the obvious question, what about the end user? And that's where we have the last question. Why are we doing this? There's this website called have I been pond? Have you been on it? It's always disturbing.  And when that was published, people were like, wait a second. So someone hacks a bunch of email addresses and this guy publishes the list that sounds odd. Right? That sounds opposite of what we want to do here. And the reality is this is a great example of what's called the capability approach. The capability approach looks at ethics in terms of what happens to the end user, what kind of capabilities is that person granted by doing something? So Google and Apple are both rolling out this new thing now, which allows you to tell your phone how much time you want to spend with your phone. And when you reach that limit, your phone will be like, you are spending too much time with me, please put me down and go live with your life instead. Which grants capabilities to the user to take control back from the thing that was designed to make them addicted. And this comes from this project called time well spent, which looks at the addiction component of cell phones and all these other devices. And this is a good example of capability approach. This idea that we design things around the capabilities we grant to the people who use them rather than what we get out of it as service providers or companies or sellers of products. Now there's a book called start with why is very famous that has the three circles, the how, the why, and the what, the how, the why by Simon Sinek. And he says, why is not about making money, that's the result. Why is a purpose, a cause or a belief? And this maps to this old, old, old idea, asking why is about, is a way of clarifying your desire to shape the world to your vision. So every decision you make when you ask why am I doing this, you have to think about the world you build as you're doing that. The capability approach is a new type of ethics that emerged in the 70s that looks at the just the rightness and goodness of an act in the scope of whether or not it grants freedom to achieve well-being in the end user and whether it grants people capabilities so that they have real opportunities to do and be what they have raised the value. So you're offloading the entire judgment on to what happens to the people you're designing things for. In other words, an action or a design decision is right if it grants or enables those acted upon, your end users, capabilities in the form of real opportunities to do and be what they have raised the value. So this concept of user-centered design needs an upgrade. Instead of thinking about user-centered design and have these users that we think about, we should think about capability-centered design. What capabilities do we grant the users by doing these designs? Because every design decision we make carves a path that our users follow into their future. And right now, the path that we carved with our social experiment have not led where we intended it to go. So instead of thinking about this concept of what is it, move fast and break things that everyone keeps saying all the time, I think we should adopt something new. When someone says move fast and break things, we should respond by saying give everyone the capability to do and be what they have raised the value. That should be our design principle. Heather Burns wrote an article for Smashing Magazine where she exemplifies this in describing privacy-centered design where she says as the creators of applications and the data flows that they create, we can play a critical and positive role in protecting our users from attacks on their privacy. We grant them the capability to control their own privacy instead of doing it for them. So capability approach, if we want to apply it to our design practice, we ask what capabilities are we granting and enabling in the end users? Do these capabilities allow them the freedom to achieve well-being? And finally, what future are we building for them? So when I was in that hospital with that box with that tiny human inside and I asked those questions, what, how, who and why, the reason I could be there and be comfortable with what happened next is because I could answer every question. What are the consequences? Well, they want to treat the baby to make it better and they know how that's done. How do they uphold their duty of care? They're doctors and nurses, they have the Hippocratic oath. They believe in what they're doing. I know what they believe in because I watch medical TV, because my dad is a doctor, because I understand what they're trying to do. Who are they and what do they become? Well, they're doctors and nurses, they're experts at this, they know what they're doing and they always aspire to be something better. And finally, what are they doing this?  And the interesting thing is when they make decisions, they are making the exact same set of questions, only they do it in reverse. They start by asking themselves, why am I doing this? Well, I'm trying to fix a problem. Who am I and what do I become by doing this? Well, I try to meet my own standards and move to make it better every time. How do I uphold my duty of care? I follow the rules, I establish new best practices and I do the right thing at all times. And finally, what are the consequences? Well, I should know because I've studied this, I think carefully about it and everything. And it is this system that makes it possible for us to trust other people. So rather than think of it as this onion that I've been showing you, think of it as a bridge. When you're making a decision, you start by asking why. Why am I doing this? Then who do I become? Then what duties of care do I have? And finally, what are the consequences? If you take an existing decision, you're going the other direction. What are the consequences? Because you can see them. What kind of best practices were established here? Who did I become by doing this? And finally, why did we do it? And it is by crossing this bridge in either direction that you get the necessary knowledge to have a firm conversation about what you are doing. This is what allows you to go to your client and question the ethics of something they want you to do. And not just say, this feels uncomfortable to me, but explain why and start a conversation that brings you forward. The reality is, by asking these questions, you can take an uncomfortable situation and turn it into a great opportunity. Because once you turn a proposal or a design question or anything else into a question of what capabilities are we granting the end user? And how does this benefit them? And then what do we become by doing this? And then what kind of best practices are we setting? And how are we protecting the end user? And finally what are the consequences? It becomes a different conversation from I want to put the ad there because then people subscribe to my newsletter. I ran through a hallway and in front of me was a small child running very fast and trying not to trip because he knew that outside the door was a beach and an ocean. And I took his hand and I looked at him and I realized that what I do when I design things is building a future. It's not merely designing things that look nice. It's not merely making something that works. It actually carves a path into the future that every person who interacts with it will follow. And this is what we all do. You all build the future with everything you do. Just think about that. You build the future. This is an awesome power and an awesome responsibility. So standing there holding Leo's hand in the water and I could see the traces of our footsteps as we go down and they are the literal path that leads into his future. I look at him and think how can I do this? Seriously who am I to do this? How do I know what's right? And somewhere in the back of my mind I can hear Robert M. Piercig say the place to improve the world is first in one's own heart and head and hands and then work out for it from there. Thank you very much. Somehow we have time for questions. Does anybody have a question? Come on, be brave. I do not have cookies, I'm sorry. I have some. Do you want to give them away when people ask you questions? Go to the mic please. Okay, go ahead. Hi Martin. I don't have a question. I just want to thank you. Thank you. Sorry. I'm feeling it too. I think that says everything. I work with WordPress but I'm originally a psychologist so I really connected with your whole talk and I'm really... I can't say anything else. Sorry. Just thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, we have a question over there. Let's go there first. Hi, Martin. Hello. Thank you for all the work that you do. I remember when you published the first article about this ethics talk or that you know I assumed you're probably going to talk about it because it's really good things and thank you for speaking and sharing this with us and telling the story of your son and I also have a social science background and it's funny to me because that's the approach you want to take right. We care about users. We care about people. We care about flesh and and bones right. They're human beings in front of us and I would be remiss to say that you know we the people of the privacy core component thing that we're trying to make stuff happen. We spent a bunch of time yesterday informing new users about what privacy looks like and what data means. So there's also an accessibility team, a design team and a community team and marketing team that tries to talk about all these things here within the WordPress space. So practical next steps. We're at a work camp. How do we take some of these things and maybe immediately action in ways that are a little bit more practical. Right so this is this is the challenge right.  This is so much information. So here's what you do. All you have to remember are the four questions. Nothing else. You don't need to go to university and highlight eight years of philosophy to do this. You need to ask the four questions. Why am I doing this? Who do I become? What are my duties of care and how do I uphold them and what are the consequences? By asking these four questions anytime you have a complex decision to make you'll discover that as you start discussing the answers new avenues open up. So people often see they hear ethics and then they think of it as this moralistic blanket that kills creativity. I think of it more of more as a hearth that helps you control the creative flames and direct them so that they produce the most heat possible without burning the house down. And I can tell you from experience implementing this method just asking those four questions in my life in design and everything else helps bring about change because you're not just thinking about the immediacy of what you're trying to solve. You're thinking about what it does. And I'm not when I say every design decision carves a path into the future. I truly mean it. You're not simply dissolving a problem. You're actually building the future. When you think about it that way it seems daunting at first and then you realize I can build a future I'm going to live in and that I want other people to join me in. Is that a good answer for your question? It's not really practical next steps but it is. I gave you four questions to ask. It's the best I can do. Well I mean at the end of the day right you're you're leading us toward I think a world with we have tools to be able to respond. Yes. And that's the key thing right like if you give people a simple answer that says remember four things you know it is a way to navigate these kinds of issues in a larger context and I really appreciate the effort that you put forward here because it is a very good framework for navigating that. And what is your name? I'm Leo. Exactly. I remember it. It's the same name as my son. It's funny. And we've had a couple conversations about it. It's funny. Your son looks very cute on screen. Thank you. Thank you. All right. More questions. My name is Kate. So I think when we talk about ethics and how they impact people often you know it's really important to think about the intersectionality aspects there. So when for example the Google telephone thing I found it extremely creepy but for people who have problems communicating on the phone either because they can't hear or they can't speak or they have crippling levels of anxiety it's actually life-changing right. Similarly you know you have the example about the army base and predicting depression but at least five years ago target was able to very accurately predict if women were pregnant right which can also carry a degree of physical risk. So I guess I have some feedback and an opportunity for you. So the feedback is you did not cover into next intersectionality at all in your talk and the opportunity is do you want to take the opportunity now to elaborate on that a bit. So this is a really interesting thing because my point in the talk is when you start asking questions about things doors open up for a further conversation. You're what you just with the phone talking machine thing right. The thing is that technology is amazing the fact that you can tell a machine to do a call for you when you can't for whatever reason it's actually a good thing in itself because it allows access to things that previously weren't accessible for a myriad of reasons. The problem with it isn't that you can do it the problem is how it's presented when the machine pretends to be a human being. So that you as a the other end of that conversation don't know if you're talking to a human or not right and the purpose of using ethics and design is to identify these issues and figure out how do we work around them so we get the good parts of this technology the well intended parts without accidentally causing harm to someone else because you say that you know there are a lot of people who would be who would see this as a benefit there are also a lot of people who would be directly harmed by this technology the people at the call centers who no no longer know if they're talking to a human being or talking to a machine that's pretending to be a human being the the companies that get a ton of calls from machines because anyone can program any machine to do this and this talk is not specifically about how we solve the world's problems in particular it's about how we start thinking differently about starting conversations around those problems so that we identify issues like intersectionality like complexity in trying to serve a varied user base that may have varied needs and identify the problems before they happen because like accessibility and all of this stuff around intersectionality often has to do with not understanding the full breadth of your user base and then literally drawing a line and saying anyone who falls outside of this defined area is irrelevant to me and that's what a lot of the science decisions are doing they say design for the majority as in the other people don't matter and the people that often fall outside are the people that are literally intersections between multiple different groups so they are marginalized two or three or ten times more than other people and because they then not just fall outside of the average user but fall well outside of the average user they become something that is ignored until you introduce a process where you actively seek that out and ask the questions early on in the process why are we excluding these people is that okay who made that decision and can't we make a solution that also takes into account these people I mean in my city in Vancouver we currently have this conversation which is the city of Vancouver wants to ban straws plastic straws because we all know plastic straws are terrible because we get like a thousand of them they go into the ocean whales eat them it's terrible so the city of Vancouver just decided we're banning these plastic straws and then immediately the accessibility community came and said hey plastic straws are the only way a lot of people are able to drink and no a steel straw won't solve that problem because then you have to clean it and there's a bunch of other problems and paper straws don't work because they get like there are a multitude of levels to this conversation that go beyond just plastic straws are bad for nature so we need to come up with another solution to this and the counselors who came up with this ban then had to roll all the way back and say okay we clearly didn't ask all the questions here we need to start this entire conversation over bring in more people get a better understanding of why we excluded these people that's what this is about giving you the tools to start those conversations all right more conversations with Caitlin later yes definitely it feels like it last question let's go hello thank you for your talk so i'm basically new to this topic of ethics in technology and you get me really interested so where do i go from here like are there any books apart from start with why oh resources you can recommend there's a lot of stuff being written about this so i'll be self-serving and say i wrote an article about this that works through the same stuff in more detail and relates specifically to web design it's on smashing magazine it's called using ethics and web design heather has written a ton of content on gdpr compliance which actually touches on the same subject here smashing also released an article last week i think about how to how we use psychology in design to basically manipulate our course people into doing things and why that's not okay and how we can use the same ways of thinking without harm without harmful consequences and there are also many books being published right now about this topic there's one called um re-engineering humanity which looks at the same kind of ideas um Sharon um Shannon uh what's the hell's the name Shannon Valor's book the techno-moral virtues it's great very technical but it's actually really good and if you just come to me later i have an endless list of reading material that i can give you that looks at all these problems because there are this is complex and the challenge is to not be overwhelmed when you start start with something really simple address try to find some way of getting a path into it and then incrementally move your way forward that's where this quote came from it's somewhere the uh piercing quote that the way we change the world is actually by starting with ourselves doing it small and doing it simple and then slowly building ourselves out awesome thanks a lot thank you thank you everyone that's all the questions thank you Martin