mr. mulvenon talked about the move towards encryption and more usable forms of consumer security tools. he talked a little bit about sort of the shift as the professor talks about in terms of moving standard capability from being more law enforcement friendly to protecting the user more and professor gene kamm put it starkly in the sense that she said you know we could mandate that cars should be able to explode on command or the engines explode when being chased by the cops but we don't do that because exploding cars are dangerous. i'm wondering if the panel, if other people or mr. mulvenon have thoughts about the international implications of this stuff and does that put more pressure on the desire to sort of make the process work a little better and are there trade implications of more ubiquitous consumer grade strong crypto security? >> the thing is there's an obvious dilemma which is to say that to argue, because you almost want to say i wish we all had better encryption but the bad guys didn't have better encryption. that's obvious to the problem is that given the level of insecur