mr. steven roosa, i will start with you, i'm going back to the idea of strict liability, your examples oftc, and this is not my field, with pornography, seeing this logical fallacy, with equifax, there is actually an element of c and enter, actual knowing, do not that strict liability would be appropriate if there is actual knowledge just in a credential type question? >> right,! -- equifax is not a client and i cannot ache for them, i would not necessarily concede that there was see and enter, let us unpack that. what i want to do is take the example, and just as a hypothetical, even, if we are not attaching it to a specific company and saying, what about strict liability? if you are talking about an entity where there is c enter for a bad act why do you need strict liability? you have fault, intent, causation, you do not need strict liability. the existing regime respond to that hypothetically, i do not want to throw anyone under the bus. consider the counterfactual, if equifax had the world's best security in place and they tried everything and someone still found a way in, even after